Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation

Holford, Dawn Liu; Fasce, Angelo; Tapper, Katy; Demko, Miso; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hahn, Ulrike; Abels, Christoph M.; Al-Rawi, Ahmed; Alladin, Sameer; Boender, T. Sonia; Bruns, Hendrik; Fischer, Helen; Gilde, Christian; Hanel, Paul H. P.; Herzog, Stefan M.; Kause, Astrid; Lehmann, Sune; Nurse, Matthew S.; Orr, Caroline; Pescetelli, Niccolò; Petrescu, Maria; Sah, Sunita; Schmid, Philipp; Sirota, Miroslav; Wulf, Marlene

doi:10.1177/10755470231162634

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be done in a number of ways: Examination of retrospective projections can be used to assess projection skill. Here, “testing” could involve reviewing projections with people who have detailed knowledge of the region or sector of focus (e.g., decision makers, community members, practitioners, scientists) to examine if projected drivers and trends make sense in‐light of local contexts, drawing upon participatory methods (e.g., focus groups, interviews, scenario planning) (Flynn et al., 2018; Holford et al., 2023). This can then inform methodologies used to develop projections and identify areas where they can be improved. Projections made for future time periods which have since passed can be evaluated for consistency with what actually happened.…”

Section: Learning From the “Science Of Forecasting” Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing Trust in Climate Vulnerability Projections

Ford

2024

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Projecting future trends is emerging as a key focus of community‐based climate vulnerability assessments. In these mostly qualitative studies, understanding of current vulnerability processes is used as a basis for identifying who and what are vulnerable to future changes, where, and why, and characterizing the key drivers of vulnerability and how they might change. Few, if any, of these studies engage with approaches for validating findings, reflecting the difficulties of validating mostly qualitative projections of highly uncertain futures, absence of directly measurable vulnerability outcomes, and lack of data on vulnerability drivers. Given the challenges of projecting future trends, this absence undermines trust in such work and limits opportunities to learn. This paper illustrates, with examples, how validation can be incorporated into the study design of community‐based climate vulnerability assessments through: (a) examination of retrospective projections to assess projection skill, (b) evaluation of projections made for future time periods which have since passed for consistency with what actually happened, (c) comparison of projections with empirical research that attempts to understand and constrain the effects of climate change using observed effects of weather variation, and (d) incorporation of demonstrated “best practices” into projection development, such as acknowledgment of areas of uncertainty, integration of diverse viewpoints, and utilization of multiple sources of information.

show abstract

Section: Learning From the “Science Of Forecasting” Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing Trust in Climate Vulnerability Projections

Ford

2024

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When combating vaccination misinformation in the mass media, infodemic managers should consider using credible institutions or collectives as sources for key messages, rather than a single individual. This is because bad press for a single individual could threaten the public's trust in vaccination (Holford, Fasce, Tapper et al, 2023). In addition, the individual may experience high levels of emotional stress during the course of the pandemic (Nölleke et al, 2023) and is likely to become the target of aggressive vaccine deniers and even death threats-an experience shared by many researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic (Nogrady, 2021).…”

Section: Detecting Opinion Leaders and Spokespersonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Behavioral Science for Infodemic Preparedness: The Case of Vaccination Misinformation

Schmid

2023

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health authorities aim to address misinformation within the framework of pandemic preparedness. Research reviewed here helps to contain vaccination misinformation: detect relevant parameters for an effective response, reduce individuals’ belief, and prevent its spread. The reviewed measures range from text-based campaign materials to real-time rebuttals of science deniers to empathy-based corrections in physician-patient conversations. The measures require knowledge of either the content of misinformation, the misleading tactics used by science deniers, or the psychological profiles of the recipients. Moreover, these measures require expertise from behavioral scientists and training for spokespersons and opinion leaders. Thus, policymakers can maintain an infrastructure for social listening, engage behavioral scientists in pandemic preparedness, and strengthen spokespersons and health care personnel before the next pandemic starts.

show abstract

Traditional, dialogical and complex scholarly communication: towards a renewed trust in science

Foderaro,

Gunnarsson Lorentzen

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe credibility crisis of science is a growing topic of investigation. This study approaches the problem from the sustainability of the scholarly communication system by merging argumentation with information science.Design/methodology/approachCoding and content analysis drawing from a well-established textual argumentative tradition; a novel non-textual approach to complex communication and, an overlooked definition of sustainable information, were applied to 34 research works. The retrieval was carried out using Inciteful, a tool exploring literature networks. Additional information, such as keywords, mapping to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and citations were acquired through the OpenAlex API. Operationalisation of concepts from the theoretical framework underpinned the selection and analysis of documents.FindingsScholars virtually involve peers, funding agencies, research councils, policymakers, experts, practitioners and representatives of the public in their formal written production. The described coalitions are occasional, while the needed ones are deep. Three forms of scholarly communication were found: traditional, dialogical and complex depending on the involved audiences. The sample tells us about the sustainability of the scientific communication system and the impact it may have on the public construction of imaginaries of science.Originality/valueThis investigation frames scholars, their products and societies as intertwined dialogical entities constantly communicating and impacting each other. Direct and indirect forms of scholarly communications are addressed too, showing how poor sustainability in these processes may entail a failure to reach different layers of societies.

show abstract

Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation

Cited by 3 publications

References 70 publications

Increasing Trust in Climate Vulnerability Projections

Increasing Trust in Climate Vulnerability Projections

Using Behavioral Science for Infodemic Preparedness: The Case of Vaccination Misinformation

Traditional, dialogical and complex scholarly communication: towards a renewed trust in science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About