Speaking Their Language: How to Communicate Better with Policymakers and Opinion Shapers – and Why Academics Should Bother in the First Place

Abstract

communication, opinion, op-ed, policy, policymakers, media,

Adding ‘iterativity’ to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: A novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces

“…According to the interviewee such problems can be overcome only by building on previous discussions and each other's points to achieve trust and mutual understanding. Trust grows only over time and often with iterative face-to face dialogue (Dabelko, 2005). Secondly, it was noted in interviews and workshops that scientists are often in the same position for years, while policy makers change positions more frequently.…”

Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe — A survey on both sides of the science/policy interface

“…As scientific findings draw much of their validity through the context of their application in policy narratives (Herrick, 2004), analysis of the communication process between science and policy should be able to identify some bottle-necks in the science/policy interface. For one, environmental scientists who want their work to affect policy must learn to speak and write in a slightly different languagewith extreme concision, an appealing format, and ready solutions to pressing policy questions (Dabelko, 2005). Wallner et al (2003) follow the same line of thought and also address that scientists have to make sure that -when communicating scientific information to lay people (be it politicians or the public) -the information has to be easy-to-understand for non-scientists and the wording of the information has to fit the target group.…”

The role of uncertainties in the design of international water treaties: an historical perspective

“…While scientists tend to stress the unknown, policy makers must provide certainty and concrete deliverables (Dabelko 2005;Fogel 2005), in particular because they have to meet the expectations of their domestic constituencies (Putnam 1988). This two-level game implies that politicians might avoid uncertainty language in treaties to ensure domestic support while at the same time including mechanisms to address anticipated uncertainties.…”