![]() This is especially true where there are disparities between those making – or imposing – decisions, and those who end up living with the consequences.Ĭommunity-centric communication. So why shouldn’t I impose my “superior” knowledge on those who are unaware of how much their lack of understanding is harming themselves and others? Unfortunately, knowledge alone does not confer the right to decide what’s best for others, nor the right to impose your will on them. Where there are complex decisions to be made that depend on a tangled mass of personal, social, economic, environmental and other factors, about the only certainty is that no one group has the monopoly on what is right or wrong. And this meant listening to them, getting to know them, and understanding where my expertise ended and theirs began.ĭitching the deficit model. Implicit in the deficit model is the assumption that there is a small, privileged group of people who know what is right and wrong, and it is their responsibility to impose this on others who don’t have this privileged insight. I do not buy into this assumption. It became increasingly clear that I had to put the needs and interests of the person or group I was communicating with first. This informal education was continued through listening to and learning from many others who had expertise and perspectives outside of my own, including academics, business leaders, policy makers, activists, and, of course, journalists. But I began to discover how ignorant I was in so many others – including understanding how people think and respond when faced with new information and complex decisions. Sure I had expertise in one particular area. These weren’t the scientifically illiterate “public” I’d been led to believe made up society, but intelligent individuals with their own interests, concerns and insights. And second, they contextualized the conversation around new technologies in terms of what was important to them – their health, their families, what excited them and worried them their passions and convictions. I developed a tremendous respect for the participants. Not many of them had higher degrees, or well-paid jobs, or knew much about science and technology. First, these people asked intelligent, insightful questions – they were smart. Respect. The participants typically represented a cross section of American society. Communication and PR are waning, with engagement (good) and propaganda (bad) waxing.īelow are summaries of some recent science communication essays that are of relevance for climate science.Īndrew Maynard has a superb essay Confessions of a Science Communicator that describes his philosophy of science communication, which contains many elements of successful engagement. The traditional model hasn’t been very effective, and science communication is becoming more sophisticated (and interesting). In other words, the emphasis was on communication and PR. ![]() The traditional model of climate science communication has been: experts convey climate science to the public –> the public then acts in accord with the views of the climate scientists, i.e. ![]() So, exactly what are we trying to communicate, and how and why? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |