Research Briefs through Interpreters’ Eyes: Recommendations for Scientists Sharing Park‐Based Research

Abstract

Today's scientists and science communicators have to navigate a complex and rapidly changing media environment (National Academies 2016). Americans are divided along party lines in terms of how they view the value and objectivity of scientists. In particular, there are sizable gaps between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to trust in scientists whose work is related to the environment (Funk et al. 2019). In a media landscape pocked with skepticism and false claims, partnerships with trusted institutions are valuable and critical (Nesbit 2014, Skorton 2018). Intermediaries like docents, interpretive rangers, and guides who work in museums, zoos, and aquariums win high marks for trust among public audiences. These interpreters have the potential to increase the public's perception of the value of scientific research (National Research Council 2009, Schneider 2017). As truth is replaced with true-sounding "post-facts," it is critical for science to advance the most accurate knowledge (Plavén-Sigray et al. 2017). One way to do so is to maximize its accessibility to non-specialists. However, scientists and interpreters face time constraints that limit opportunities for in-depth, face-to-face exchanges about place-based studies. Furthermore, scientists' published, peer-reviewed articles are often not accessible to professional audiences outside academe (Merson et al. 2017). With readability of scientific texts decreasing (Plavén-Sigray et al. 2017), research briefs are a valuable and reasonable compromise.

Science and Public Engagement in National Parks: Examples and Advice from Young Scientists

“…For scientists who conduct place‐based studies, like those in I&M networks, there are limited opportunities for face‐to‐face interactions with the public. Research briefs, however, begin to fill this need by providing non‐specialists with readable yet thorough overviews of their existing work (Merson et al 2020). For MOJN, I produced project summaries, research briefs that introduce the threats to a natural resource, the methods utilized in examining this threat, and the management applications of the information gathered.…”

“…The National Park Service (NPS) takes this potential seriously via its own staff, strategic initiatives, and partnerships in science communication and public engagement. Professional communicators in parks (interpreters, educators, and others) often are available to collaborate with researchers on making their science part of the visitors' experience (Watkins et al 2018, Merson et al 2020). For all these reasons, national parks can help strengthen scientists' work related to the “broader impacts” criterion of National Science Foundation grants.…”