Twenty Years of Evolving Models of Science Communication
@MCNisbet
Matthew C. NisbetAssociate ProfessorSchool of CommunicationAmerican University Washington D.C.
The Sharing Science Conference
University of British Columbia 03.29.14
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.
Hype risks 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?
@MCNisbetNisbet, M.C. & Markowitz, E. (2014). Understanding Public Opinion in Debates Over Biomedical Research: Looking Beyond
Partisanship to Focus on Beliefs about Science and Society. PLoS ONE 9(2): e88473.
More Carl Sagans?
Social Identity and Communication Behavior
@MCNisbet
More Carl Sagans?
Social Identity and Communication
@MCNisbetNisbet, M.C. & Markowitz, E. (in press). Experts in an Age of Polarization: Evaluating Scientists’ Engagement with
Politics and Civic Life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
The Strategic Communication Model
Messaging By Audience Segment and By Way of Opinion Leaders
@MCNisbet
Strategic Communication Campaigns:
Frictions and Trade-Offs
@MCNisbet
Raises questions about conflict of interest and
manipulation.
Difficulty coordinating message strategy across
groups and organizations.
Often serves to increase polarization and divisions.
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 “democratize” the governance of science and technology.
Can enhance civic capacity of regions, creating opportunities to debate and collaborate.
Can increase participant trust and knowledge, soften group differences and polarization.
Informs policy options, adapts knowledge to localized contexts or specialized cases.
Questions regarding representativeness and reach, giving visibility to minority views, or criticized as just another “public relations” strategy.
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 research 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.
www.ClimateShiftProject.org/NASInterface
@MCNisbet