I've been skipping the framing wars lately. I think Matt Nisbet was wrong to criticize PZ Myers for talking up his expulsion from the Expelled showing in Minneapolis. I think PZ is wrong to blithely dismiss framing. I think both of those parties, and a number of other players in this persistent spat, have lost perspective, and let this turn into an extended grudge match that no one cares about.
In brief, the Expelled Expulsion undercut the Expelled framing. If the movie is all about freedom, etc., then it's inconsistent to be censoring critics with NDAs and arbitrary expulsion of their critics. That invalidates a key part of Nisbet's complaint. Then again, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are not spokesmen for science, any more than any random pair of scientists could be considered to speak for the entire enterprise. That goes double when they mix their (valid) message about the importance of science with their (legitimate but debatable) position on theology; people dig in their heels on deeply-held moral issues, including religion. To the extent that PZ or Dawkins present themselves as spokesmen, then, that is harmful to the broad goal of improving science literacy (at least in the short to medium-term), and it is fair for other scientists to criticize PZ or Dawkins on those grounds. However, in choosing to place that issue at the center of his critique of science communication, Matt should have been able to predict that people would dig in their heels, and he would have been wise to choose a different example. He has them, and uses them in discussing climate change, stem cells and evolution. His poor framing of his message has poisoned the well for others who would like to carry the banner for a new era in effective science communication.
After all, the differences between PZ and Matt pale in comparison to the differences between both men and Ben Stein. I fear they lost sight of that, and the discussion on the blogs has emphasized that divide, to the extent that creationists are citing the debate for their own nefarious purposes.
What inspires me to rework that overly-contested soil is James Hrynyshyn's assessment of "the REAL problem with framing science":
The problem with framing science is ...
It's either a trivial concept to which an entire academic career should not be devoted, or it's a corrupting influence that threatens everything for which science should stand. …
ScienceBlogger Matt Nisbet, … his fellow ScienceBlogger Chris Mooney, and the essay he and Dietram Scheufele wrote in The Scientist, … define frames as "interpretative schema" that help audiences understand something. Frames "simplify complex issues by lending greater importance to certain considerations and arguments over others."
To me, that kind of description doesn't stray far from what any decent journalist will recognize as a successful way to tell a story. What Matt calls a frame, I would call an "angle." This is not proverbial brain surgery or rocket science. It's common sense.
Of course you appeal to your audience's sensibilities. … Among the first things a journalist learns is to write for the reader/viewer/listener. You tell your reader why it is the story is important and how it will affect them. You "frame" the story according to their interests. Perhaps it is no coincidence that among 75 or so ScienceBloggers the biggest defender, aside from a communications theorist, is a journalist.
And if that's all framing is, it's hardly worth worrying about. If, however, framing is something more consequential (the alternative hypothesis, to use a scienfific term), if learning how to frame properly requires training and expertise, and its study is worthy of the awarding of PhDs, then what are we actually talking about?
In this context, the notion that framing can "simplify complex issues by lending greater importance to certain considerations and arguments over others" becomes less benign. …
Science does embrace simplicity over unnecessary complexity, insofar as parsimony is a useful tool. But scientists are not trained to simplify as an exercise in communications. And they are certainly not trained to emphasize certain elements of their studies at the expense of others just to suit the biases of an audience. (Well, maybe an audience that's reviewing a grant application...) They are trained to do the precise opposite: prioritize according to genuine importance, regardless of who's paying attention.
Indeed, the whole point of science is the pursuit of objectivity, is it not? Framing, by contrast, seems to embrace subjectivity.
And so we get a dichotomy that isn't a dichotomy. Framing is either "a successful way to tell a story," what journalists (and lawyers) are trained to do and what successful politicians learn to do, or it is a form of communication that scientists are not trained to undertake, a way of simplifying messages to fit a given audience.
The fact is that journalists like Hrynyshyn are trained to do what they do. There are professional academics (with Ph.Ds) who study how that works, and who teach it at places called journalism schools. When Hrynyshyn suggests that "academic career should not be devoted" to this subject, he is ignoring the fact that there already are academic careers devoted to exactly the sense of the term he regards as trivial (but which turns out not to be trivial).
Here's something to ponder. Graduate students in the sciences rarely receive any training in effective teaching techniques, lecture preparation, curriculum development, or other forms of pedagogy. There are few if any courses offered in this country which teach Ph.D. candidates to put together an effective slideshow for a 15 minute conference talk, nor how that preparation might differ from the preparation needed for an hour-long seminar, and how that might differ from an hour-long lecture to a visiting school group, or the slideshow they'd use in one hour-long class out of 30-40 they'd deliver in a semester-long course. And even programs which do offer some of that preparation do not train or encourage students to talk to reporters about their research, or broadly about their field of study.
Journalists like Hrynyshyn spend years learning an important and tricky skill, to the point that it seems natural and obvious. Scientists spend years being "trained to do the precise opposite: prioritize according to genuine importance, regardless of who's paying attention." Unless it's a funding agency, in which case you grumble and tailor to the audience, all the while feeling cheapened.
This is a problem, and it is far from trivial. The approach scientists are trained to take in communicating their work is precisely the opposite of what professional communicators are taught, and as a result, there are very few effective science communicators, and the few who exist are often ostracized for speaking out.
We should no more say "Screw the public if they can't understand my point" than we'd say "Screw my students if they can't understand my lecture." If education matters, it doesn't just fall on the students to be effective learners, the teachers have to be effective also. That insight ought to be trivial, but it doesn't seem to sink in.
- Log in to post comments
"To the extent that PZ or Dawkins present themselves as spokesmen, then, that is harmful to the broad goal of improving science literacy (at least in the short to medium-term), and it is fair for other scientists to criticize PZ or Dawkins on those grounds."
And to what extent do they actually present themselves as 'spokesmen'?
I think you are describing exactly the same strawman claim that Nisbet uses in his criticism of outspoken atheistic scientists.
And another point, have you ever considered that there may be countries outside the US where the majority of the population don't believe the Flintstones is a historical documentary and actually find Dawkins message quite reasonable and who just might consider calls for him or his ilk to be silenced as something akin to religious based censorship?
Sigmund is making good points. Here in Canada (though Greg Laden considers us condescending seal murderers, except for his particular Canadian friends), the only creationist problem we have is a weak spillover from the US. People here have the same respect for science as they would for any profession requiring intelligence and dedication.
Dawkins was interviewed on national television a while back, about his books and his views. My neighbour is an elderly lady very much (pretty much on a daily basis) involved with her church, and she brought up the interview while chatting with me. Her assessment of Dawkins included phrases like "a well spoken man", "very distinguished", "striking and interesting ideas". Her conclusions were that she "learned some things she hadn't known were so", "couldn't of course agree with his atheism, but could understand it", and "found some of what he said so interesting she felt she had to follow up with some reading, including his books".
Now, she is a smart lady by any measure, but she's not unusual in this country - she's normal.
As far as I can tell, the US has much deeper problems with pre-university education than the peoples' comprehension of science topics. And I have a whole slew of cousins who are third generation Floridians. They come to visit their Canadian roots every couple years, and frankly, though lovely people for the most part, certainly not stupid, they are shockingly uninformed and uneducated in what we would consider basic common knowledge. I know, it's just an anecdote.
I keep coming back to 'PZ and friends' have FORCED the dialog. Perhaps it's uncomfortable for most but I thought shining a light on it was what we we supposed to do.
Damn those 'uppity atheists'!
"calls for him or his ilk to be silenced"
WTF! I'm not calling for anyone to be silenced. I don't think anyone should be silenced.
Expelled decided to prop up PZ as some sort of representative for science, and PZ has, in some of his public writing and activities, taken that mantle on. I don't know if that's how he would describe himself, but he has certainly not been shy about stepping forward to be a spokesman. I don't think it's a straw man. Nisbet overstates the extent to which that has happened, and I think other scientists bear plenty of blame for not doing what PZ and Dawkins have done, which is simply to step forward and speak on their own behalf. That's laudable, but it's fair to ask what responsibilities (if any) that decision might impose on someone.
Josh, I'm not accusing YOU of calling for PZ and Dawkins to be silent. It was Nisbet who advocated that line and Chris Mooney backed him up by describing their tactics as 'stupid'.
I still think its ridiculous to think of PZ or Dawkins as spokesmen for science. Thats just not how science works. The closest we get is something like consensus reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the recent evolution book for the public released by the National Academy of Sciences.
When did calling someone's tactics stupid equate with telling them to be silent?
I also agree that it's ridiculous for PZ or Dawkins to be thought of as spokesmen for anyone but themselves, but I don't control the press, nor do I control how PZ or Dawkins present themselves publicly. I'm well-aware that their control over how they are presented in the press is only partial. But partial control is better than nothing, and I think there's a valid nugget to Nisbet's analysis of media coverage, even though I agree that Matt was wrong to suggest that PZ and Dawkins should not speak out. They should speak out in ways that are more effective. If you check out Chris's latest posts, he's been clear on that point.
This is really an excellent commentary on the whole mess -- and I think you raise some very valid points on how science PhDs are trained to think of and present information.
My own exerience has been that people with a focus on and in science, both trained and by inclination, also tend to think that "all one has to do is present accurate information" and then the audience will either see the obvious, or else they really must be stupid. Alas, that really isn't how the vast majority of people work. Some of my siblings, while not stupid and with what passes for a reasonable level of education in the US, just don't think that way. You can present as many accurate facts as you like, concisely or at great length, and they will stare at you blankly and completely fail to take any of them into account in their next set of decisions. In order to communicate what the facts mean and why, connections to things they care about emotionally need to be explicitly pointed out, and consequences explicitly discussed. That, to me, is framing: it's not lying or spinning, and in only one aspect can even be considered "persuading"; but unless the connection between the facts and the things they actually care about is made explicit, all that lovely information that you may have worked so hard to acquire slides right off the surface of their minds because it has no meaning to them. Deplore it or despair of it, it doesn't matter -- that's simply the way a lot of people work, and I cannot see any plausible utopia where that is going to change, given the persistence of the trait. And it's important, because WE live in the world created by these other people, too. They vote. They control money. We have a vested interest in whether or not they understand. Just blowing them off as "stupid" is something that will (and does) come back and bite us.
Meh, sorry for the rant.
Sigmund -- whether or not YOU think of Dawkins and Myers as being "spokesmen for science" is also in a way irrelevant. If the non-science public sees them that way, this is the perception that counts, in this particular debate. And they have done a great deal to step forward, speak out, and have implicitly become those spokesmen. They have been repeatedly described in that explicit phrase (admittedly Dawkins a great deal more often than Myers) in The Guardian (UK), The New Statesman, blurbs on book descriptions and bookseller reviews like those on Amazon and Barnes & Noble, and in multiple blogs. I hardly think they actually shun that title -- I would go so far as to say that is how they see themselves! Thus, whether or not you agree with the perception, the fact that many people out there act as if they are make that agreement irrelevant unless you can do something useful about it.
As Josh points out, the only real thing anyone can do is also to speak out, voice disagreement if necessary, and do their own representations of science to the public so that there are more publicly available voices.