Communicating science in politicized environments

Abstract

Many members of the scientific community attempt to convey information to policymakers and the public. Much of this information is ignored or misinterpreted. This article describes why these outcomes occur and how science communicators can achieve better outcomes. The article focuses on two challenges associated with communicating scientific information to such audiences. One challenge is that people have less capacity to pay attention to scientific presentations than many communicators anticipate. A second challenge is that people in politicized environments often make different choices about whom to believe than do people in other settings. Together, these challenges cause policymakers and the public to be less responsive to scientific information than many communicators desire. Research on attention and source credibility can help science communicators better adapt to these challenges. Attention research clarifies when, and to what type of stimuli, people do (and do not) pay attention. Source credibility research clarifies the conditions under which an audience will believe scientists' descriptions of phenomena rather than the descriptions of less-valid sources. Such research can help communicators stay true to their science while making their findings more memorable and more believable to more audiences.embers of the scientific community share a frustration: many attempts to communicate science are badly received (1-4). This frustration is particularly evident in politicized environments: that is, settings where decisions on divisive public issues must be made.These communicative frustrations are salient because many scientists work hard to make socially valuable discoveries. Science can help nonscientists make better decisions. However, scientists often find that their advice is ignored or willfully misinterpreted. This article seeks to help science communicators expand the set of circumstances in which they can achieve better outcomes.In some respects, the difficulty of communicating science to broader audiences is easily explained. Scientists discover new phenomena as well as new relationships among existing phenomena. Describing these discoveries and relationships often requires new language or using existing language in unusual ways. Many nonscientists, however, find our lexicon difficult to access: they see many scientific presentations as needlessly abstract and disconnected from their lives (5, 6). Audiences who see scientific presentations in these ways have less motivation to pay attention to them (7). If such motivations are sufficiently low, seeds for communicative failure are sown.We, as scientists and science communicators, can improve how scientific information is conveyed to policymakers and the public. One way to realize this potential is to build from a social scientific knowledge base that can help communicators develop more realistic expectations about when others will pay attention to us and when they will believe what we write and say. This knowledge base can help science communicators ...

The sciences of science communication

“…Or, it might require enough knowledge about the underlying science to understand why the experts make those estimates (8). Knowing the gist of that science could not only increase trust in those claims, but also allow members of the public to follow future developments, see why experts disagree, and have a warranted feeling of self-efficacy, from learning-and being trusted to learn-about the topic (9,10).…”

"Hearing from all sides" How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States

“…In addition, credibility of the presenter was an important characteristic of testimony. However, it is still unclear how credibility is defined by state legislators, and whether findings from previous credibility research (29) hold true for presenters of legislative testimony. Future research can build upon the existing literature on presenter credibility to identify the characteristics that make some presenters more credible than others in a state-level legislative setting, particularly for presenters sharing testimony other than scientific findings (e.g., public health researchers and practitioners).…”

“…In addition, the finding that presenter credibility/knowledge is most influential, followed by the use of credible data in testimony, suggests strategies that researchers and advocates can employ to improve the effectiveness of testimony by considering the implications of who presents the testimony and what data are included. Previous research on credibility suggests that both the legislator's perception of common interests and expertise of the presenter matter more than a variety of other characteristics often associated with credibility, such as academic credentials or political party identification (29). The presenter should emphasize interests he/she shares with the committee or highlight the breadth of expertise instead of focusing on a specific academic degree as a strategy to enhance the presenter's credibility.…”

“…The presenter should emphasize interests he/she shares with the committee or highlight the breadth of expertise instead of focusing on a specific academic degree as a strategy to enhance the presenter's credibility. For example, Lupia (29) suggests presenters of scientific testimony emphasize that their past work has been replicable, transparent, and reliable. how testimony can be tailored to impact this ultimate policy outcome.…”

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

“…Other potential reasons for the lack of consensus include use of relatively broad descriptions for selection criteria and the diversity of nationalities and disciplinary backgrounds of the participants involved. The latter may have influenced the interpretation and understanding of the criteria (Lupia 2013).…”