Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science Communication

Role of Experts in Public Life & Models of Science Communication

COM 589: Communication,
Culture & the Environment
American University

Prof. Matthew C. Nisbet

@MCNisbet

Finding Solutions to a Wicked Problem

@MCNisbet

“Soft Path” Technocratic Approach to Social Change
Design to Win Foundations, 2007-2010 / $368M Distributed Across 1248 Grants

Nisbet (2011); Nisbet (2013); Nisbet (under review).

@MCNisbet

Introductions
o As a scientist, social scientist or professional working
on behalf of an expert institution, what is your
preferred role relative to public outreach and
policymaking?

o How might this role change given the nature of an
issue you may be working on or based on a career
change?

@MCNisbet

Four Idealized Roles for Scientists in Policymaking
VIEW OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY

Linear Model

(Madisonian)
Interest group
pluralism

(Schnattsneider)
Elite
Conflict

Pure Scientist

Science
Arbiter

Stakeholder Model

Issue Advocate

Honest Broker of
Policy Alternatives

@MCNisbet

The Scientific Arbiter
oResponds to request or need from
policymakers or media for synthesis
of expert opinion and research
related to emerging science, trend or
problem.
oTypically stops short of offering policy
advice or advocating on behalf of a
policy option.

@MCNisbet

(Stealth) Issue Advocate

oRun into problems when scientific
findings, studies or reports are
framed as compelling specific
policy action or choice.
oStealth advocates limit policy
options rather than expand them.

@MCNisbet

Honest Broker Approach

Means and options focused
• Goal: Adaptation and resilience.
• Expand menu of options currently discussed.
• Provide differential information on effectiveness,
risks, costs, social implications.
Pluralistic and participatory
• Diversity of experts and stakeholders.
• Public consultation and co-learning.
Goal is to enable and empower decisions, not to
influence, persuade or limit.

@MCNisbet

Discussion Question
o Think about individual scientists or organizations
working either at the state or national level. Drawing
on the Pielke reading and discussion, which scientists
and organizations reflect the role of

o
o
o
o

science arbiter?
issue advocate?
stealth advocate?
honest broker?

o How effective have each of these individuals or
organizations been?
@MCNisbet

The Rightful Place of Science?
Politicization and Technocracy

@MCNisbet

Deficit Model Assumptions
 If the public knew more about the technical side of
science, then the public would view issues as scientists
do, and there would be fewer controversies.
 Need to return to a point in the past where science was
respected and citizens were informed.
 Emphasis is on improving science literacy through formal
education and science media.

@MCNisbet

The Popularization and Dissemination Model
 Engages a core audience of science enthusiasts
who can comment, share, and repurpose.
 Can reach through incidental exposure nonattentive, broader publics.
 Can shape the decisions and thinking of
policymakers, journalists and funders.
 For scientists, can build personal brand, increase
citation impact, influence scientific peers, and
develop skills and experience.

@MCNisbet

Popularization & The Cycle of Hype

 Emphasis by funding agencies on broader
impacts puts pressure on scientists and
institutions to “oversell” their findings.
 Media coverage emphasizes near term societal
benefits and market development with less
emphasis on uncertainty and possible risks.
 Risk credibility and trust in science and may
undermine ability to do basic research.
 Increasingly defines science and higher
education in terms of economic development and
job growth.

@MCNisbet

More Scientific Knowledge = More Disagreement?

@MCNisbet

More Carl Sagans?
Social Identity and Communication

@MCNisbet

Scientists’ Faulty Intuition:
Shared Identity, Information Sources & Assumptions

@MCNisbet

2. Networks and Trust Matter

Social relationships,
networks, and
identities

Trust, credibility,
alienation relative to
science-related
institutions

The uptake
and
influence of
“expert”
sciencerelated
knowledge

Practical reason,
localized knowledge

Bryan Wynne

@MCNisbet

Common Criteria Used to Judge Expert Advice
1) Does expert knowledge work? Do predictions fail?
2) Do expert claims pay attention to other available
knowledge?
3) Are experts open to criticism? Admission of errors,
or oversights?
4) What are the social / institutional affiliations of
experts? Historical track record of
trustworthiness, affiliation with industry?
5) What issues overlap or connect to lay experience?

@MCNisbet

Q: What Issues/Examples from Your Work Are Consistent
with Wynne’s Observations?
1) Does expert knowledge work? Do predictions fail?
2) Do expert claims pay attention to other available
knowledge?
3) Are experts open to criticism? Admission of errors,
or oversights?
4) What are the social / institutional affiliations of
experts? Historical track record of
trustworthiness, affiliation with industry?
5) What issues overlap or connect to lay experience?

@MCNisbet

Models of Science Communication

Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform
Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication(pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge.

@MCNisbet

The Strategic Communication Model
Messaging By Audience Segment and By Way of Opinion Leaders

@MCNisbet

Audience Segmentation, Framing & Opinion Leaders:
Climate Change and Biomedical Research

@MCNisbet

COMPASS: Contextualist and Network Approach

Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform
Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication(pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge.

@MCNisbet

Strategic Communication Campaigns:
Frictions and Trade-Offs
 Resource intensive and even greater tendency towards
cycle of hype. Increases questions about conflict of
interest, marketing and manipulation. Difficulty
coordinating communication and message strategy
across groups and organizations.
 Effective at mobilizing base of support and engaging
publics predisposed to message but often serves to
increase polarization and controversy. Increased
targeting = increased echo chambers.
 Does strategic communication lead to effective policy?
 Under what conditions does broader public matter to
policymaking?
 Defines public as spectators, consumers or voters but
not as active participants in decisions.

@MCNisbet

Public Engagement and Dialogue Model:
Deliberative Forums, Public Meetings, Digital News Forums
Seeks to empower public to participate in collective
decisions, “democratizing” the governance of science and
technology.
 Can enhance civic capacity of states and regions, build up
problem solving infrastructure, create opportunity to learn,
discuss, debate, decide, and collaborate.
Dialogue can increase public trust, perception of fairness,
increase public efficacy, motivate subsequent participation,
enhance both scientific and policy-related knowledge, soften
group differences and polarization.
Dialogue can inform experts and formulation of policy
options, identifying new expertise or adapting knowledge to
localized contexts or specialized cases.
Questions regarding representativeness and reach,
backfire effects, loss of control of message, use as just
another “public relations” strategy, resource intensive.

@MCNisbet

Worldwide Views on Biodiversity

@MCNisbet

Stakeholder Driven Science and Lay Expertise Model

Research that effectively addresses the needs of
society requires “co-production” with public.
Emphasis on that is useable, problem solving
and socially acceptable; aligning research efforts
with national, state or local needs.

Promotes enhanced trust, appreciation and
support for research institution among public,
stakeholders and policymakers.
Can be time consuming, resource intensive,
“messy,” does not fit easily with traditional
collaboration, publication and credit model.

@MCNisbet

Preparing and Planning Ahead for Climate Change
Building a Civic Science Infrastructure and Network

Nisbet, M.C., Hixon, M., Moore, K.D., & Nelson, M. (2010). The Four Cultures: New Synergies for Engaging Society on
Climate Change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 329-331.

@MCNisbet

Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science Communication

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science Communication (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Lectures: Scientists & Advocacy / Models of Science Communication