Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Nisbet nas interface_draft
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Nisbet nas interface_draft


Published on

Draft slides for Dec. 8 presentation as part of the National Academies Roundtable on Public Interfaces in the Life Sciences. #NASInterface

Draft slides for Dec. 8 presentation as part of the National Academies Roundtable on Public Interfaces in the Life Sciences. #NASInterface

Published in: Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Science Communication and Public Engagement: Major Models and Approaches Matthew C. Nisbet Associate Professor School of Communication American University Washington D.C. Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication National Academies, Washington DC 12.09.13 @MCNisbet #NASInterface
  • 2. The Popularization and Dissemination Model  Engages a core audience of science enthusiasts who can comment, share, and repurpose.  Can reach through incidental exposure nonattentive, 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. @MCNisbet
  • 3. Popularization & The Cycle of Hype  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. @MCNisbet
  • 4. More Scientific Knowledge = More Disagreement? @MCNisbet
  • 5. More Carl Sagans? Social Identity and Communication @MCNisbet
  • 6. Scientists’ Faulty Intuition: Shared Identity, Information Sources & Assumptions @MCNisbet
  • 7. The Strategic Communication Model Messaging By Audience Segment and By Way of Opinion Leaders @MCNisbet
  • 8. Audience Segmentation, Framing & Opinion Leaders: Climate Change and Biomedical Research @MCNisbet
  • 9. Strategic Communication Campaigns: Frictions and Trade-Offs  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. @MCNisbet
  • 10. Public Engagement and Dialogue Model: Deliberative Forums, Public Meetings, Digital News Forums 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. @MCNisbet
  • 11. Worldwide Views on Biodiversity @MCNisbet
  • 12. Stakeholder Driven Science and Lay Expertise Model 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. @MCNisbet
  • 13. @MCNisbet