Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
http://climateshiftproject.org/civic-science-lab-day-1/ In the morning session, we will spend time discussing how science and expert advice is used in the policy process; and the different roles that scientists and their organizations can and should play. We will also discuss how scientists generally tend to view the public, the media and the political process and how these assumptions might influence their participation in public life. In the afternoon session, we will move to discussing the factors that influence public understanding, judgements and decisions. This research has informed different approaches to public outreach, education and communication. For each approach, we will draw on examples relevant to issues and topics that you work on or care deeply about.
Citation preview
The Civic Science LabDay 1: Experts in the Decision-Making Process & Models of Communication
@MCNisbet
Climate Change Institute
University of Maine 5.14.13
Matthew C. NisbetAssociate ProfessorSchool of CommunicationAmerican University Washington D.C.
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 of
Policy 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.
Finding Solutions to a Wicked Problem
@MCNisbet
Tornado versus Abortion Politics
@MCNisbet
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
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.
1957: Is the Past That Different from Today?
Science Literacy
@MCNisbet
12% of the public understood the scientific approach or
method.
On basic questions tapping knowledge of
polio, fluoridation, radioactivity, and space satellites, only 1
in 6 could answer all four questions correctly.
Only 38% knew that the Moon was smaller than the Earth
and only 4% could correctly indicate the distance in miles
between the Moon and the Earth.
Michael, D.N. (1960). The Beginning of the Space Age and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 573-582;
Withey, S.B. (1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 382-388.
1957: Is the Past That Different from Today?
Low Knowledge But Support for Science
@MCNisbetMichael, D.N. (1960). The Beginning of the Space Age and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 573-582;
Withey, S.B. (1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 382-388.
1957: Is the Past That Different from Today?
Low Knowledge But Support for Science
@MCNisbetMichael, D.N. (1960). The Beginning of the Space Age and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 573-582;
Withey, S.B. (1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 382-388.
1957: Is the Past That Different from Today?
Perception is Context Dependent
@MCNisbetMichael, D.N. (1960). The Beginning of the Space Age and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 573-582;
Withey, S.B. (1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 382-388.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Behind Russia,
Security
Propaganda Nothing
significant
Religious
Meaning
Scientific
Advancement
1957: Looking to
the future, what
would you say is
the real meaning
of Sputnik to us
here in America?
1957: Is the Past That Different from Today?
Perception is Context Dependent
@MCNisbetNational Science Board (2008). Chapter 7: Public Attitudes about Science and Technology. Science & Engineering Indicators.
2008: Is the Past That Different from Today? Deep Public
Optimism and Trust in Science
@MCNisbet
More than 70% of all American adults believe that the benefits of
scientific research outweigh the harmful results.
More than 85% of Americans agree that “even if it brings no immediate
benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is
necessary and should be supported by the federal government.”
On climate change, stem cell research, and food
biotechnology, Americans believe scientists hold greater expertise, are
less self interested, and should have greater say in decisions than
industry leaders, elected officials, and/or religious leaders.
Among institutions, only the military has greater trust than science.
Analysis of 2006 General Social Survey; National Science Board (2008). Chapter 7: Public Attitudes about Science and Technology.
Science & Engineering Indicators.
2. Networks and Trust Matter
@MCNisbet
Social
relationships, networ
ks, and identities
Trust, credibility, alienati
on 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.
Examples of 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.
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.
The Deficit vs. Public Engagement Model
@MCNisbetGroffman, P. Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M.C. et al. (2010). Restarting the Conversation: Challenges at the Interface of Science and Society.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 284-291.
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.
Discussion Question
Think about the issues or topics that you are working on, care most deeply about, or are most familiar with. Drawing on the Brossard & Lewenstein reading, identify examples that reflect the:
o deficit model
o social contextualist model
o lay expertise model
o public engagement models of science communication
What factors account for why one of these models might have been adopted over another?
@MCNisbet
