Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SO
T 2
009
– ©
Ber
ub
e 20
09
Mar
ch 1
7, 2
009
– B
alti
mo
re
Public Understanding of Emerging Science and Technology:
Four Observations
David M. Berube
•Research ProfessorDepartment of CommunicationNorth Carolina State University
•CoordinatorNCSU Public Communication
of Science and Technology Project
•PI – NSF – NIRTIntuitive Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement& CoPI Dietram Scheufele,
UWisc.
•CEINT – Duke University w PI Mark Weisner
THE WHITE PAPERTHE WHITE PAPER
NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.htmlhtml).).
Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverhttp://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverables.htmlables.html. . Power Points.Power Points. Streams and Downloads.Streams and Downloads.
THE NIRTTHE NIRT
ResearchResearch Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009).Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009). Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth
Carolina (mirror surveys).Carolina (mirror surveys). Data analysis w UWisc.Data analysis w UWisc. Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC.Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC. Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn.Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn.
SupplementSupplement History with NSF.History with NSF. Summer 2008 (144 pp.)Summer 2008 (144 pp.)
Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)
OBSERATION 1 – PUBLIC INTEREST = KNOWLEDGE
1. Public is generally disinterested in nanoscience (<70%).
2. Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (<90%).
3. Deficit theory of science literacy. Self-selected exclusion.
0102030405060708090
USA 2004
USA2005a
USA2005b
USA 2006
USA 2007
Heard little or nothing
Heard some or a lot
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIESUSA
2004: Cobb/Macoubrie2005a: Einsiedel2005b: Macoubrie2006: Hart2007: Kahan
IRGC, 2009
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIESCANADA AND EUROPE
2004: UK-BMRB2004: DE-Komm-passion2005: CAN-Eisendel2007: BfR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
UK 04 DE 04 CAN 05 DE 07
Heard little or nothing
Heard some or a lot
IRGC, 2009
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE = INTEREST
1. From 2004 to 2007 public who heard little or nothing decreased from 84 to 81 percent, people who heard some or a lot increased from 16 to 19 percent.
2. Over 3 years, no significant impact from media exposure. 3% within error percentage.
Scheufele, Corley, Shih, Dalrymple & HoDecember 2008
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE = UNDERSTANDING
From 2004 to 2007, no changes in levels of public knowledge about nanotechnology, levels of technical understanding of nanotechnology (definitions of nanometer, and size relative to an atom) are close to 50 percent.
The distribution of correct and incorrect responses that could be expected based on pure chance.
1.1. Data is poorly collected and Data is poorly collected and inaccurate.inaccurate.
1.1. Incorrect sample.Incorrect sample.2.2. Incorrect methodology. Incorrect methodology.
2.2. Plateaued – the public with interest Plateaued – the public with interest and attention are meeting their and attention are meeting their information needs.information needs.
3.3. Disinterest – the public simply does Disinterest – the public simply does not care until a crisis event ensues.not care until a crisis event ensues.
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA
OBSERVATION 2 – PUBLIC ATTENTIONAND DIGITAL MEDIA
1. Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them.
2. Design web resources as digital media NOT as text. Web2 are interactive.
3. Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (micro-blogging), sliver TV, Second Life….
4. Data indicates demographics favor net-newsers in the USA (Pew 2008 data).
TV and Internet News Consumption
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18-24 25-29 30-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Age Range
% c
on
su
mp
tion
fro
m e
ach
med
ium
TV 1998
TV 2008
WWW 1998
WWW 2008
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, August 2008
OBSERVATION 3 – PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
1. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution).
2. Engagement is not for everyone. Engagement exercises may not produce usable data. Sample size and methodology.
3. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive.
NISE AUDIENCES
EliteAudiences
MassAudiences
Low HighMessage Exposure
Posi
tive
Out
com
es
SCIENCE TELEVISION
PERCEPTIONPERCEPTION
Amplificationand attenuation
Event
Perception of public perception
Public perception
Group leaders
PUBLIC SCIENCEPUBLIC SCIENCE
IN VIVO ANDIN VIVO ANDEPIDEMIOLOGICALEPIDEMIOLOGICAL
ININVITROVITRO
“real”SCIENCE
OBSERVATION 4 – PUBLIC SCIENCE
OBSERVATION 4 – PUBLIC SCIENCE
1. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive.
2. Public science is technology: it deals with applications not with discoveries.
3. Risk has a negative valence. Discussing risk increases its negative valence regardless of the subject.
PUBLIC SPHEREPUBLIC SPHERE
OUTREACH
PARTICIPATIONENGAGEMENT
CONSUMERS
New risk strategies for communicati
ngto publics
1. Stop using intuition when designing a communication campaigns. Failures are expensive AND risk fatigue is real.
2. Use data; NO place for pop-communication and crisis PR.
3. Don’t over-extend your expertise. Risk on a dime is not wise. Use communication professionals.
FREE ADVICE - WHAT TO DO WHEN
COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC
SO
T 2
009
- ©
Ber
ub
e 20
09
M
arch
17.
200
9 –
Bal
tim
ore
RISK COMMUNICATION AND PUBLICS
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, #0809470Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.
Salute to Dietram Scheufele, U Wisc.
