Role of Experts in Public Life & Models of Science Communication

@MCNisbet

COM 589: Communication, Culture & the EnvironmentAmerican University

Prof. Matthew C. Nisbet

Finding Solutions to a Wicked Problem

@MCNisbet

“Soft Path” Technocratic Approach to Social ChangeDesign to Win Foundations, 2007-2010 / $368M Distributed Across 1248 Grants

@MCNisbetNisbet (2011); Nisbet (2013); Nisbet (under review).

Introductions

@MCNisbet

o As a scientist, social scientist or professional working on behalf of an expert institution, what is your preferred role relative to public outreach and policymaking?

o How might this role change given the nature of an issue you may be working on or based on a career change?

Four Idealized Roles for Scientists in Policymaking

@MCNisbet

Pure Scientist

Honest Broker ofPolicy Alternatives

Issue Advocate

Science Arbiter

Linear Model Stakeholder Model

VIEW OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY

(Madisonian)Interest group

pluralism

(Schnattsneider)Elite

Conflict

The Scientific Arbiter

@MCNisbet

oResponds to request or need from policymakers or media for synthesis of expert opinion and research related to emerging science, trend or problem.

oTypically stops short of offering policy advice or advocating on behalf of a policy option.

(Stealth) Issue Advocate

@MCNisbet

oRun into problems when scientific findings, studies or reports are framed as compelling specific policy action or choice.

oStealth advocates limit policy options rather than expand them.

Honest Broker Approach

@MCNisbet

Means and options focused• Goal: Adaptation and resilience.• Expand menu of options currently discussed.• Provide differential information on effectiveness,

risks, costs, social implications.

Pluralistic and participatory• Diversity of experts and stakeholders.• Public consultation and co-learning.

Goal is to enable and empower decisions, not to influence, persuade or limit.

Discussion Question

@MCNisbet

o Think about individual scientists or organizations working either at the state or national level. Drawing on the Pielke reading and discussion, which scientists and organizations reflect the role of

o science arbiter? o issue advocate?o stealth advocate?o honest broker?

o How effective have each of these individuals or organizations been?

The Rightful Place of Science?Politicization and Technocracy

@MCNisbet

Deficit Model Assumptions

@MCNisbet

If the public knew more about the technical side of science, then the public would view issues as scientists do, and there would be fewer controversies.

Need to return to a point in the past where science was

respected and citizens were informed.

Emphasis is on improving science literacy through formal education and science media.

The Popularization and Dissemination Model

@MCNisbet

Engages a core audience of science enthusiasts who can comment, share, and repurpose.

Can reach through incidental exposure non-attentive, broader publics.

Can shape the decisions and thinking of policymakers, journalists and funders.

For scientists, can build personal brand, increase citation impact, influence scientific peers, and develop skills and experience.

Popularization & The Cycle of Hype

@MCNisbet

Emphasis by funding agencies on broader impacts puts pressure on scientists and institutions to “oversell” their findings.

Media coverage emphasizes near term societal benefits and market development with less emphasis on uncertainty and possible risks.

Risk credibility and trust in science and may undermine ability to do basic research.

Increasingly defines science and higher education in terms of economic development and job growth.

More Scientific Knowledge = More Disagreement?

@MCNisbet

More Carl Sagans?Social Identity and Communication

@MCNisbet

Scientists’ Faulty Intuition:Shared Identity, Information Sources & Assumptions

@MCNisbet

2. Networks and Trust Matter

@MCNisbet

Social relationships, networks, and

identities

Trust, credibility, alienation relative to

science-related institutions

The uptake and

influence of “expert” science-related

knowledge

Practical reason, localized knowledge

Bryan Wynne

Common Criteria Used to Judge Expert Advice

@MCNisbet

1) Does expert knowledge work? Do predictions fail?

2) Do expert claims pay attention to other available knowledge?

3) Are experts open to criticism? Admission of errors, or oversights?

4) What are the social / institutional affiliations of experts? Historical track record of trustworthiness, affiliation with industry?

5) What issues overlap or connect to lay experience?

Q: What Issues/Examples from Your Work Are Consistent with Wynne’s Observations?

@MCNisbet

1) Does expert knowledge work? Do predictions fail?

2) Do expert claims pay attention to other available knowledge?

3) Are experts open to criticism? Admission of errors, or oversights?

4) What are the social / institutional affiliations of experts? Historical track record of trustworthiness, affiliation with industry?

5) What issues overlap or connect to lay experience?

Models of Science Communication

@MCNisbetBrossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication(pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge.

The Strategic Communication ModelMessaging By Audience Segment and By Way of Opinion Leaders

@MCNisbet

Audience Segmentation, Framing & Opinion Leaders:Climate Change and Biomedical Research

@MCNisbet

COMPASS: Contextualist and Network Approach

@MCNisbetBrossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication(pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge.

Strategic Communication Campaigns: Frictions and Trade-Offs

@MCNisbet

Resource intensive and even greater tendency towards cycle of hype. Increases questions about conflict of interest, marketing and manipulation. Difficulty coordinating communication and message strategy across groups and organizations.

Effective at mobilizing base of support and engaging publics predisposed to message but often serves to increase polarization and controversy. Increased targeting = increased echo chambers.

Does strategic communication lead to effective policy?

Under what conditions does broader public matter to policymaking?

Defines public as spectators, consumers or voters but not as active participants in decisions.

Public Engagement and Dialogue Model:Deliberative Forums, Public Meetings, Digital News Forums

@MCNisbet

Seeks to empower public to participate in collective decisions, “democratizing” the governance of science and technology.

Can enhance civic capacity of states and regions, build up problem solving infrastructure, create opportunity to learn, discuss, debate, decide, and collaborate.

Dialogue can increase public trust, perception of fairness, increase public efficacy, motivate subsequent participation, enhance both scientific and policy-related knowledge, soften group differences and polarization.

Dialogue can inform experts and formulation of policy options, identifying new expertise or adapting knowledge to localized contexts or specialized cases.

Questions regarding representativeness and reach, backfire effects, loss of control of message, use as just another “public relations” strategy, resource intensive.

Worldwide Views on Biodiversity

@MCNisbet

Stakeholder Driven Science and Lay Expertise Model

@MCNisbet

Research that effectively addresses the needs of society requires “co-production” with public.

Emphasis on that is useable, problem solving and socially acceptable; aligning research efforts with national, state or local needs.

Promotes enhanced trust, appreciation and support for research institution among public, stakeholders and policymakers.

Can be time consuming, resource intensive, “messy,” does not fit easily with traditional collaboration, publication and credit model.

Preparing and Planning Ahead for Climate ChangeBuilding a Civic Science Infrastructure and Network

@MCNisbetNisbet, M.C., Hixon, M., Moore, K.D., & Nelson, M. (2010). The Four Cultures: New Synergies for Engaging Society on Climate Change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 329-331.