2021 - Communicating Astronomy with the Public Talk
âąAls PPTX, PDF herunterladenâą
0 gefĂ€llt mirâą89 views
An updated version of the 'strategic science communication' talk for astronomy communicators. Focuses more deeply on the goals that might make the most sense for basic science researchers.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere Àhnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (19)
Ăhnlich wie 2021 - Communicating Astronomy with the Public Talk
Ăhnlich wie 2021 - Communicating Astronomy with the Public Talk (20)
Mehr von John C. Besley
Mehr von John C. Besley (19)
KĂŒrzlich hochgeladen
KĂŒrzlich hochgeladen (20)
2021 - Communicating Astronomy with the Public Talk
- 1. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. INSERT A SPACE BASED PHOTO ⊠Strategic Science Communication: A Social Scientific Approach to Effective Public Engagement John C. Besley Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations Michigan State University
- 2. Who am I ⊠⹠Research on publicâs views about science and scientists âą Research to help science community communicate more effectively âą Interviews with a wide range key actors âą Surveys of scientists
- 3. A well-timed side-gig ⊠⹠What does the #scicomm research literature say about communicating âbasicâ science? (a.k.a., fundamental or discovery science)
- 4. Tentative answer: There is no sustained literature specifically focused on âbasic science communicationâ
- 5. Communication researchers likely focus on applied science because thereâs often a compelling behavioral goal in specific audiences (including ourselves) Garry Knight, Old Cash Register; Eneas De Troya, Autos Electrico; Alhambra Source, Francisco Mora signsâŠ; Arvis Geduss, Lazy Cat all via Flickr Creative Commons Actual behaviors Pseudo- behaviors
- 6. What do I mean when I use the term âaudience specific behavioral goals?â Garry Knight, Old Cash Register; Eneas De Troya, Autos Electrico; Alhambra Source, Francisco Mora signsâŠ; Arvis Geduss, Lazy Cat all via Flickr Creative Commons What do you hope will happen from the time, money, and energy you put into communicating? Actual behaviors Pseudo- behaviors
- 7. Goals for basic scientists and those who communicate basic science? Actual behaviors Pseudo- behaviors Mark Warner, Senate Budget Committee, via Flickr Creative Commons
- 8. Who do communication researchers think about long-term behavior change? (Great books by smart people, but not what weâre talking about, here)
- 9. Who do communication researchers think about long-term behavior change? (Great books by smart people, but not what weâre talking about here)
- 10. How do we think slow (systematic) communication works? Over time, efforts to foster deeper cognitive engagement on science topics should result in long-term, cumulative changes to all communication participantsâ (including scientists) evaluative beliefs Attitudes are the (weighted?) sum of available/salient beliefs (b) and the evaluation (e) of those beliefs Paul Sableman, Dripping via Flickr Creative Commons
- 11. Who do communication researchers think about long-term behavior change? Evaluative beliefs about risks and benefits of science funding Evaluative beliefs about salient social norms around science funding Evaluative beliefs about self-efficacy to provide science funding Potential Communication Objectives Potential Behavioral Goal Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz (Ed.), Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Behavioral Intention
- 12. Who do communication researchers think about long-term behavior change? Evaluative beliefs about risks and benefits of STEM career choice Evaluative beliefs about salient social norms around STEM careers Evaluative beliefs about self-efficacy to pursue a STEM career Potential Communication Objectives Potential Behavioral Goal Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz (Ed.), Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Behavioral Intention
- 13. âAvailable research does not support the claim that increasing science literacy will lead to appreciably greater support for science ...â The fundamental challenge of science communication
- 14. Who do communication researchers think about long-term behavior change? Risk and benefit beliefs Normative beliefs Self-efficacy beliefs Potential Communication Objectives Potential Behavioral Goal Knowledge/awareness about specific facts/processes ? Specific emotions* How behavior is framed *This feels quite common for astronomy communication (i.e., awe, wonder, etc.)
- 15. But what about the legitimacy of science as a way of making sense of the world as a goal? Potential Behavioral Goal Risk and benefit beliefs Normative beliefs Self-efficacy beliefs Potential Communication Objectives Science knowledge ? Specific emotions* How behavior is framed ? Trust = A willingness to make oneself vulnerable
- 16. But what about the legitimacy of science as a way of making sense of the world? Potential Behavioral Goal Risk and benefit beliefs Normative beliefs Self-efficacy beliefs Potential Communication Objectives Science knowledge ? Specific emotions* How behavior is framed Trustworthiness and Fairness Beliefs Benevolence beliefs Integrity beliefs Openness beliefs Ability beliefs Shared values/ identity beliefs Besley, J. C., Lee, N. M., & Pressgrove, G. (2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3-32.
- 17. Why are we making this so complicated!? Which pantry do you want?
- 18. Option 1: If you have a clear goal, find a way to pursue it ethically (communicate/learn about risks/ benefits, norms, self-efficacy, specific emotions, etc. ) Option 2: If youâre searching for a goal, consider trying to ensure the legitimacy of science/trust by behaving and communicating in ways that foster trustworthiness ⊠(You should also do this if you have a goal.) Does this help foster trustworthiness? Is it how we want to be seen?
- 19. What about jargon, dialogue, story-telling, etc.? Tactics = Choices about who says or does what to/with who in what way and through what channel? (behaviors, messages, tone/style, timing, source, channel) De-Jargonizer How accessible is your work, paste your article ⊠to analyze the amount of jargon in your writing. Most training ⊠Emphasis on âtranslation,â storytelling, social channels, and fostering dialogue, journalists
- 20. What do we mean by strategic and effective? Behavioral Goals Communication Objectives Tactics *Again, always recognizing that you should aim to change yourself, too.
- 21. What about public engagement? JCB: Whatâs your goal? Communicator: âWe want to increase engagement about ______?â What beliefs/feelings/frames do you hope will result from âengagementâ? Risks/ benefits? Norms? Efficacy? Something about the trustworthiness? Why do you want to increase engagement; and with who? What do you think will happen if you succeed? (The goal questions) (The objectives questions)
- 22. What about misinformation? JCB: Whatâs your goal? Communicator: âWe want to decrease misinformation about ______?â What types of misinformation? Risks/ benefits? Norms? Efficacy? Something about the trustworthiness of the people involved? Why do you want to decrease misinformation? What do you think will happen if you succeed? Why frame in terms of misinformation? What might you want people to believe and feel about the issues and people involved? (The goal questions) (The objectives questions)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- benefit if science communicators behaved more strategically when making communication choices. Doing so could increase the likelihood that the time and resources we put into communication advance the scientific enterprise. Being truly strategic in science communication likely means starting with the identification of clear, long-term, audience-specific behavioral goals. It should then involve using theory and evidence to prioritize intermediate communication objectives that have the best chance of achieving the identified goals, as well as communication tactics that have the best chance to achieve the prioritized objectives. Tools such as dialogue, storytelling, audience-analysis, and jargon-free communication are useful tactics, but they are not strategies, goals, or objectives. Similarly, increasing scientific knowledge and excitement are often key intermediate objectives but rarely the end-goal of communication. Thank you for inviting me today. Iâm really excited to talk with you today. Iâve taken to having cover slides that involve Lego and, in this case, even my 14-year-old son was excited to get involved because it meant he got to make a little space exploration scene for me in the backyard. I note this because, as I know you know, thereâs some things about astronomy and space exploration that would seem to give astronomy communicators a bit of an unfair advantage in the science communication space. On the other hand, Iâm also going to argue that one of the challenges that may come from this kind advantage is that it might make it easy to lean a bit too heavily on a few key approaches. A first step to becoming a more strategic communicator is to understand (a) the difference between long-term behavioral goals and intermediate communication objectives, and (b) the range of communication objectives that communicators can choose. This talk will suggest just two main types of goals and a limited range of objectives that most science communicators need to consider. These two goals include changing either audience or communicator behavior, or legitimacy judgments. Potential communication objectives include evaluative beliefs about the natural world (i.e., scientific knowledge), other people (i.e., trustworthiness, social norms), and behaviors, as well as a range of discrete emotions and frames. Knowing more about goals and objectives enables nuanced, evidence-based, and creative discussions about the infinite range of tactical choices available to science communicators. The talk will be grounded in research conducted by the author and his colleagues over the last decade. This work includes personal interviews and quantitative surveys with scientists, as well as interviews of communication trainers, foundation leaders, fellowship-program managers, and others. The underlying ideas also originate in research about the social psychology of behavior change, trust and fairness. It also draws on thinking
- This idea of leaning on a few key approaches is fairly normalâI think we all have a few favored approaches to communicatingâbut the idea of how to think more broadly and thus strategically Iâve come to think about a lot in the research I do with my various colleagues ⊠Interviews: trainers, scientific societies, foundations, fellowship programs Surveys: Scientific societies, Canadian grant recipients, Scientists at AAU, part of a couple of local LTERs
- Department of Energy and Kavli Foundation have asked a few colleagues and I to look at what the science communication literature says about basic science communication and the degree to which that might be different from research focused on applied communication ⊠Focus on five journals: PUS, SC , IJSE-B, JoSC ⊠Topics: Astronomy/Physics, Chemistry, Nanoscience/Nanotechnology
- There are individual studies here and there but ⊠itâs a tiny percentage of the overall percentage of content. The vast majority of the literature addresses issues of perceived risks and benefits of specific technologies or how to communicate on threats like climate change.
- A lot of research doesnât spell out the goals but theyâre looking in the background âŠ
- What do we mean by goals?
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- Note ⊠this slide suggests a reconceptualization of public engagement activities as tactics aimed at fostering system 2/systematic/central route processing by all participants. The key is that things like dialogue are great at fostering the motivation to process and that plain language is great at fostering the ability to process. Beliefs are not just beliefs about science, but also beliefs about others ⊠Also important to note that scientistsâ beliefs, feelings, and frames should change if the engagement tactic is appropriately designed and the scientist is being reflective.
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- Key idea is deficit model thinking as a over reliance on one limited pathway towards behavior change âŠ
- Knowledge = Justified true belief ⊠Any of these beliefs could be knowledge âŠ
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- The goal isnât always explicit ..
- We need to take communication seriously.
- Option 1: If you have a goal, be honest about it and pursue it ethically Option 2: If you donât have an immediate goal, then consider âŠ
- Emphasize that tactics are what most trainers/training books focus Note idea that you can be a really skilled tactician (clear? Vivid?) but focus on the wrong things (just explain science/results).
- Could also add a slide about the fact that good communication is hard and we need a community of practitioners to help do it; we canât expect individual scientists to carry the burden on their own.
- Could also add a slide about the fact that good communication is hard and we need a community of practitioners to help do it; we canât expect individual scientists to carry the burden on their own.
- Option 1: If you have a goal, be honest about it and pursue it ethically Option 2: If you donât have an immediate goal, then consider âŠ
- God, give me grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.
- Could also add a slide about the fact that good communication is hard and we need a community of practitioners to help do it; we canât expect individual scientists to carry the burden on their own.