Theories and Models of Science Communication

Tayeebwa, Dr William; Wendo, Dr Charles; Nakiwala, Dr Aisha Sembatya

doi:10.1079/9781789249675.0002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Models of both science and risk communication have evolved from one-way dissemination approaches that assume a deficit of knowledge or science literacy that expert knowledge can inform via knowledge transfer, through to a more recent two-way democratic approach focused on empowerment, knowledge sharing, and engagement, where both the science/risk communicators and the public are learning from each other and incorporating multiple sources of knowledge and expertise (Fisher, 1991;Fischhoff, 1995;Leiss, 1996;Covello and Sandman, 2001;Miller, 2001;Gurabardhi et al, 2005;Bauer et al, 2007;Kappel and Holmen, 2019;Doyle and Becker, 2022;Tayeebwa et al, 2022). In the latter approach communication is driven by a goal to build a 'model of mutual constructed understanding' (Leiss, 1996;Renn, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication

Doyle,

Thompson,

Hill

et al. 2024

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWe conducted mental model interviews in Aotearoa NZ to understand perspectives of uncertainty associated with natural hazards science. Such science contains many layers of interacting uncertainties, and varied understandings about what these are and where they come from creates communication challenges, impacting the trust in, and use of, science. To improve effective communication, it is thus crucial to understand the many diverse perspectives of scientific uncertainty.MethodsParticipants included hazard scientists (n = 11, e.g., geophysical, social, and other sciences), professionals with some scientific training (n = 10, e.g., planners, policy analysts, emergency managers), and lay public participants with no advanced training in science (n = 10, e.g., journalism, history, administration, art, or other domains). We present a comparative analysis of the mental model maps produced by participants, considering individuals’ levels of training and expertise in, and experience of, science.ResultsA qualitative comparison identified increasing map organization with science literacy, suggesting greater science training in, experience with, or expertise in, science results in a more organized and structured mental model of uncertainty. There were also language differences, with lay public participants focused more on perceptions of control and safety, while scientists focused on formal models of risk and likelihood.DiscussionThese findings are presented to enhance hazard, risk, and science communication. It is important to also identify ways to understand the tacit knowledge individuals already hold which may influence their interpretation of a message. The interview methodology we present here could also be adapted to understand different perspectives in participatory and co-development research.

show abstract