Perhaps it is just “frequency illusion” (aka: Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon – (where something you recently learned turns up everywhere) — but science communications research has been everywhere for me lately.
There were two studies shared at the International Public Relations Research Conference (IPRRC) www.IPRRC.org last week in Orlando, and both addressed this topic, and it was a topic of discussion at an Institute for Public Relations’ Behavioral Insights Committee (BIRC) meeting just the other day.
Communicating about science has never been more difficult in this age of:
1) prolific dis- & mis-information
2) a lack of trust in experts in general, and
3) the inability (or lack of interest) of scientists & researchers to learn to communicate better with non-science audiences. (They are used to talking to each other on a more sophisticated level but not used to translating what they know into everyday language for the rest of us).
Study 1 by Alyssa Croft, University of Florida, explored how the presence or absence of scientific efficacy claims are impacting consumer confidence, in this case, in the beauty industry.
Her study found that ads with scientific cues like “authority statements” and “efficacy claims” (whether true or not) had a greater effect on “increasing perceived scientificness”. Say it and we believe? My question: When it doesn’t work as promised, does our trust in these science “claims” diminish all scientific pronouncements?
Study 2 is a work in progress by Nicole M. Lee Ph.D. Arizona State, Matthew S. VanDyke (U. Alabama) & Alan Abitbol (U Tampa) exploring how Public Relations can be a Catalyst for Science Change. Premised on the belief that “most engagement research and training still emphasizes communication as a transmission – sharing information to increase knowledge or correct misconceptions – rather than as an opportunity for listening, relationship building, and organizational learning.” Science is most understood (and likely appreciated) by general audiences when its outcomes improve the average person’s life – think healthcare (cures for disease) or technological advances (GPS). This study will explore barriers and motivations that shape translational scientist’s willingness to listen and adapt based on public feedback. My question: How do we get the scientific community to be more adept at listening, pivoting and explaining useful outcomes and impact of science in general?
Finally, Gale Sinatra, Ph.D. University of Southern California, laid out a panoply of reasons why the general population has moved far towards “Science Denial”. Six key psychological factors weigh in, she explained, 1) Mental Shortcuts, 2) Digital Environment, 3) Motivated Reasoning, 4) Negative emotions and attitudes, 5) Social Identity Framing, 6) Epistemic Trust. You can read more detail about this in her book, Science Denial: Why it Happens and What to Do About it” Oxford Press. Her recommendations for what communicators can do to help are not very different from what we need to do for any audience in any field:
- Write in a way that the public can understand
- Know your audience’s misconceptions, motivations, attitudes, emotions, and identity
- Avoid “both sides’ as that is for opinions, not science
- Work to rebuild trust
- Provide EVIDENCE for scientific claims
- Explain how scientists know as much as they know (the scientific process)
My question: The highly educated e.g., scientist, engineers, medical professionals, etc. are often not taught, coached or held accountable for being effective communicators. What are the best ways to convince them of the importance of this skill and help them develop effective communication skills? ?
Stacey Smith, APR, Fellow PRSA, Senior Counsel & Partner at Jackson Jackson & Wagner, a behavioral and management consulting firm based in New England, member IPR’s Behavioral Insights Research Commission ssmith@jjwpr.com . Image courtesy of Freepik. Find them at https://freepik.com/