Back in August, the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published a collection of essays under the editorship of Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholster on the (seemingly) increasingly strained relationship between science and the media. I was too embroiled in the move to Michigan at the time to pay it much attention, but a news release sent out by the Academy yesterday promoting the publication prompted me to sit down and browse through it.
At first, I was worried that this would be just another piece from scientists bemoaning the sorry state of a society that doesn’t “think right”. This wasn’t helped by the title of the press release: “Science and the Media” Explores Challenges to Scientific Literacy in U.S. Fortunately, I was wrong.
Certainly, there are places here where there are overtones of a community frustrated by a “public” and especially “journalists” who don’t see and understand the world as they presumably should, and who don’t give due deference to experts who do understand things. This is reflected to a certain extent in discussions around science literacy, which tend to overshadow more difficult questions of how anyone makes informed decisions about the impacts of science and technology in a complex world where multiple factors beyond just the science come in to play. Interestingly, many of the contributors are in the business of science communication rather than science practice, suggesting that these perspectives are not limited to scientists. But this emphasis on science contributors also gives the collection considerable value – especially as it reveals a science communication community that is far more diverse than is often thought.
The collection is short enough to read through relatively quickly at just 109 pages long. And it’s well worth taking the time to read. Browsing through it this morning, three essays in particular grabbed my attention:
In your Own Voice – Alan Alda
Alda writes a beautiful piece from the perspective of someone fascinated by science on how scientists can communicate more effectively. His question is the archetypal “dumb question” – the one that seems so obvious that no-one dares ask it, but in consequence is too often ignored or brushed aside:
“…if scientists could communicate more in their own voices—in a familiar tone, with a less specialized vocabulary—would a wide range of people understand them better? Would their work be better under- stood by the general public, policy-makers, funders, and, even in some cases, other scientists?”
Alda goes on to talk about how the actors tool of improvisation might be one tool that can help scientists begin to find that personal voice that connects with people they are attempting to communicate with.
This piece is well worth reading as it represents someone who is hungry for information from scientists, but needs them to communicate, not just lecture. But the essay is also a model of communication itself. Alda is engaging, exploratory, humble and passionate – all qualities that draw the reader in and feel as if they are having an intimate conversation with the writer. And most importantly, it’s short – just three pages. An excellent lesson in eloquent brevity!
Managing the Trust Portfolio: Science Public Relations and Social Responsibility – Rick Borchelt, Lynne Friedman and Earle Holland
This is probably the most controversial essay in the collection. Borchelt and his co-authors tackle the sometimes contentious and often misunderstood role of public relations in science communication.
I suspect that most people – scientists and others alike – have a somewhat skewed perception what modern day public relations is all about. There’s often a sense that it’s a bit of a dirty profession in a bit of a dirty world – selling an image, irrespective of whether the subject of that image is deserving. But Borchelt et al. do a good job of deconstructing this myth, and presenting a very different perspective on PR. They write:
“…for some time now, many scientific institutions have unadvisedly relied on retooled scientists and former reporters to crank out an increasing blizzard of peppy news releases, driven by the axiom—now rejected by communications theorists—that “to know us is to love us” … This new Madison Avenue–driven approach has a dim chance of regaining public trust. The scientific community needs to understand what ethical practitioners of public relations have long known: trust is not about information; it’s about dialogue and transparency.”
They go on to add that “As practitioners use the term, public relations is the art and science of developing meaningful “relations” (or relationships) with the “public” (or publics) necessary for the continuing work of an organization or the scientific enterprise itself.” This seems a useful approach to science communication that begins to open the door to engagement between different groups, and a two-way flow of information rather than top-down instruction. Indeed, Borchelt et al note that “many corporations have moved away from one-way communication approaches toward more fully symmetrical models.” In the context of science, they suggest that the goal of such two-way engagements is the mutual satisfaction of scientific organizations or groups and their publics with the relationship that exists between them.
The essay then goes on explore this two-way approach to science public relations in the contexts of trust and social responsibility.
Whether you agree with the construct of science PR that is developed here or not, this is an important piece from the perspective of science communication and engagement, and reveals a more complex relationship between the generators and receivers of information and their intermediaries. It is controversial – as is reflected in a response from NBC Science and Health correspondent Robert Bazell in the collection. But it does reveal another side of the dynamic between science and the media.
The Scientist as Citizen – Cornelia Dean
The final essay I wanted to highlight was Cornelia Dean’s piece that turns the spotlight back on scientists. Through her extensive experience as a science reporter, Dean writes that she came to realize
“…if we journalists were going to improve the coverage of science, scientists would have to help us. But two problems existed. First, many scientists are not good at talking about their work in ways ordinary people—and journalists—can understand. Second, many scientists do not believe they have any reason, still less obligation, to do so. This belief is by far the more serious problem.”
Rather than try and summarize the piece, I would encourage you to read it directly – Dean writes clearly and pointedly on the need for scientists to understand and learn to be comfortable and effective in communicating what they do to a wider audience – including journalists. And specifically, she notes the need for scientists to receive training on communication. She concludes with this account:
“A number of students have told me that the issues we discussed and the hints I offered helped them when their publications in scientific journals brought them to the attention of the lay press. One of them recently sent me an email message describing his first encounter with a journalist. “It was just awful,” he wrote. “I fumbled, said the wrong things, contradicted myself a dozen times, you name it.” He contrasted this experience with one he had later, after sitting in on one of my short seminars: “I asked [the journalist] to give me a few minutes to get ready. I went to my office to have a good quiet spot to talk, stood up while talking, and tried to follow your guidelines. It went a lot better this time!” Needless to say, he made my day.
I believe all scientists should encounter this kind of training—a short course, a semester-long program if they want it, or even an internship in a news outlet or policy-making venue. I would not give students advanced de- grees in science until they had heard the message this kind of training offers.
Is this enough to solve the problem? No. But it is a start. Seeding the nation’s scientific establishment with researchers who understand the impor- tance of communicating with the lay public, and who are willing to take the time to communicate, can only be good. More important, the establishment of university programs to advance this goal tells scientists-in-training that their institutions value the effort and regard it as a worthwhile use of their time. That is perhaps their most important lesson.”
Science and the Media is freely available as a download from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Related posts:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for highlighting this very worthwhile essay collection.
I am a fan of Cornelia Dean, although I do think it is somewhat unfair to focus on scientists fortunate enough to be hard at work on actual science and expect them to be the standard bearers of science communication also.
I also appreciated the essay by Jon Miller on Civic Scientific Literacy, because public policy and political communication and education is an issue I am personally most engaged in. I believe that the need for a life long educational process is important, especially in science and technology where so many significant changes are taking place.
The essay by Alfred Hermida on Revitalizing Science Journalism for a Digital Age, was most intriguing to me. I am interested in the description of the multimedia nature of online communication, and how it causes a non-linear mode of interaction with the media by the users (not viewers or readers). I already know that, and I already do that, as a “user”; but I still learned from his analysis.
technology is part of evolution, from day 1. the increase of population goes hand in hand with technological developments more precisely it is part of humans inner consciousness, and acts as a evolving survival tool. however the problem we face is the paradox between technology and economics, they have not politically develop on the same line but rather adversely, reason why the planet is a mayhem. technology aim is to give humans the possibility of developing their creative insights, this can be done when machines do a mens work, them the individual will have free time to create rather than work on tedious jobs and repetitive task. from 1950 to now technology has reduce the workforce in all aspects of our existence, and that work force has being replace by machines. unfortunately those in power have perverted the outcome and machines are slowly destroying men rather than giving him more free time. this action creates addiction to I_PODS the INTERNET web related gadgets etc..celuar phones and the lot rather than become useful they become addictive.