An updated version of the 'strategic science communication' talk for astronomy communicators. Focuses more deeply on the goals that might make the most sense for basic science researchers.
2021 - Communicating Astronomy with the Public Talk
1. This material is based upon
work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grant
AISL 1421214-1421723. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF.
INSERT A SPACE
BASED PHOTO …
Strategic Science Communication:
A Social Scientific Approach to
Effective Public Engagement
John C. Besley
Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations
Michigan State University
2. Who am I …
• Research on public’s views
about science and scientists
• Research to help science
community communicate
more effectively
• Interviews with a
wide range key actors
• Surveys of scientists
3. A well-timed side-gig …
• What does the #scicomm
research literature say about
communicating ‘basic’ science?
(a.k.a., fundamental or discovery science)
5. Communication researchers
likely focus on applied science
because there’s often a
compelling behavioral goal
in specific audiences
(including ourselves)
Garry Knight, Old Cash Register; Eneas De Troya, Autos Electrico; Alhambra Source, Francisco Mora signs…; Arvis Geduss, Lazy Cat all via Flickr Creative Commons
Actual
behaviors
Pseudo-
behaviors
6. What do I mean when I use the term
“audience specific behavioral goals?”
Garry Knight, Old Cash Register; Eneas De Troya, Autos Electrico; Alhambra Source, Francisco Mora signs…; Arvis Geduss, Lazy Cat all via Flickr Creative Commons
What do you hope will happen
from the time, money, and energy
you put into communicating?
Actual
behaviors
Pseudo-
behaviors
7. Goals for basic scientists
and those who communicate
basic science?
Actual
behaviors
Pseudo-
behaviors
Mark Warner, Senate Budget Committee, via Flickr Creative Commons
8. Who do communication
researchers think about
long-term behavior change?
(Great books by smart people, but
not what we’re talking about, here)
9. Who do communication
researchers think about
long-term behavior change?
(Great books by smart people, but
not what we’re talking about here)
10. How do we think slow (systematic) communication works?
Over time, efforts to
foster deeper cognitive
engagement on science
topics should result in
long-term, cumulative
changes to all communication
participants’ (including
scientists) evaluative beliefs
Attitudes are the (weighted?) sum of available/salient
beliefs (b) and the evaluation (e) of those beliefs
Paul Sableman, Dripping via Flickr Creative Commons
11. Who do communication
researchers think about
long-term behavior change?
Evaluative beliefs about
risks and benefits of
science funding
Evaluative beliefs about
salient social norms
around science funding
Evaluative beliefs about
self-efficacy to provide
science funding
Potential
Communication
Objectives
Potential
Behavioral
Goal
Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the
integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz (Ed.), Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Behavioral
Intention
12. Who do communication
researchers think about
long-term behavior change?
Evaluative beliefs about
risks and benefits of
STEM career choice
Evaluative beliefs about
salient social norms
around STEM careers
Evaluative beliefs about
self-efficacy to pursue a
STEM career
Potential
Communication
Objectives
Potential
Behavioral
Goal
Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated
behavioral model. In K. Glanz (Ed.), Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Behavioral
Intention
13. “Available research does
not support the claim that
increasing science literacy will
lead to appreciably greater
support for science ...”
The fundamental challenge
of science communication
14. Who do communication
researchers think about
long-term behavior change?
Risk and benefit beliefs
Normative beliefs
Self-efficacy beliefs
Potential
Communication
Objectives
Potential
Behavioral
Goal
Knowledge/awareness
about specific
facts/processes
?
Specific emotions*
How behavior is framed
*This feels quite
common
for astronomy
communication (i.e.,
awe, wonder, etc.)
15. But what about the
legitimacy of science as
a way of making sense
of the world as a goal?
Potential
Behavioral
Goal
Risk and benefit beliefs
Normative beliefs
Self-efficacy beliefs
Potential
Communication
Objectives
Science knowledge
?
Specific emotions*
How behavior is framed
?
Trust = A willingness to
make oneself vulnerable
16. But what about the
legitimacy of science
as a way of making
sense of the world?
Potential
Behavioral
Goal
Risk and benefit beliefs
Normative beliefs
Self-efficacy beliefs
Potential
Communication
Objectives
Science knowledge
?
Specific emotions*
How behavior is framed
Trustworthiness and
Fairness Beliefs
Benevolence beliefs
Integrity beliefs
Openness beliefs
Ability beliefs
Shared values/
identity beliefs
Besley, J. C., Lee, N. M., & Pressgrove, G.
(2021). Reassessing the variables used to
measure public perceptions of scientists.
Science Communication, 43(1), 3-32.
17. Why are we making this so complicated!?
Which pantry do you want?
18. Option 1: If you have a clear goal,
find a way to pursue it ethically
(communicate/learn about risks/ benefits,
norms, self-efficacy, specific emotions, etc. )
Option 2: If you’re searching for
a goal, consider trying to ensure
the legitimacy of science/trust by
behaving and communicating in
ways that foster trustworthiness …
(You should also do this if you have a goal.)
Does this help foster trustworthiness?
Is it how we want to be seen?
19. What about jargon, dialogue, story-telling, etc.?
Tactics = Choices about who says or does what to/with
who in what way and through what channel?
(behaviors, messages, tone/style, timing, source, channel)
De-Jargonizer
How accessible is
your work, paste your
article … to analyze
the amount of jargon
in your writing.
Most training …
Emphasis on
‘translation,’
storytelling,
social channels,
and fostering
dialogue, journalists
20. What do we mean by
strategic and effective?
Behavioral
Goals
Communication
Objectives
Tactics
*Again, always
recognizing
that you should
aim to change
yourself, too.
21. What about public engagement?
JCB: What’s your goal?
Communicator: “We want to increase engagement about ______?”
What beliefs/feelings/frames
do you hope will result from
‘engagement’? Risks/
benefits? Norms? Efficacy?
Something about the
trustworthiness?
Why do you want
to increase engagement;
and with who?
What do you think will
happen if you succeed?
(The goal questions) (The objectives questions)
22. What about misinformation?
JCB: What’s your goal?
Communicator: “We want to decrease misinformation about ______?”
What types of
misinformation? Risks/
benefits? Norms? Efficacy?
Something about the
trustworthiness of the
people involved?
Why do you want
to decrease misinformation?
What do you think will
happen if you succeed?
Why frame in terms of
misinformation? What might
you want people to believe
and feel about the issues and
people involved?
(The goal questions) (The objectives questions)
Editor's Notes
benefit if science communicators behaved more strategically when making communication choices. Doing so could increase the likelihood that the time and resources we put into communication advance the scientific enterprise.
Being truly strategic in science communication likely means starting with the identification of clear, long-term, audience-specific behavioral goals. It should then involve using theory and evidence to prioritize intermediate communication objectives that have the best chance of achieving the identified goals, as well as communication tactics that have the best chance to achieve the prioritized objectives. Tools such as dialogue, storytelling, audience-analysis, and jargon-free communication are useful tactics, but they are not strategies, goals, or objectives. Similarly, increasing scientific knowledge and excitement are often key intermediate objectives but rarely the end-goal of communication.
Thank you for inviting me today. I’m really excited to talk with you today. I’ve taken to having cover slides that involve Lego and, in this case, even my 14-year-old son was excited to get involved because it meant he got to make a little space exploration scene for me in the backyard.
I note this because, as I know you know, there’s some things about astronomy and space exploration that would seem to give astronomy communicators a bit of an unfair advantage in the science communication space.
On the other hand, I’m also going to argue that one of the challenges that may come from this kind advantage is that it might make it easy to lean a bit too heavily on a few key approaches.
A first step to becoming a more strategic communicator is to understand (a) the difference between long-term behavioral goals and intermediate communication objectives, and (b) the range of communication objectives that communicators can choose. This talk will suggest just two main types of goals and a limited range of objectives that most science communicators need to consider. These two goals include changing either audience or communicator behavior, or legitimacy judgments. Potential communication objectives include evaluative beliefs about the natural world (i.e., scientific knowledge), other people (i.e., trustworthiness, social norms), and behaviors, as well as a range of discrete emotions and frames. Knowing more about goals and objectives enables nuanced, evidence-based, and creative discussions about the infinite range of tactical choices available to science communicators.
The talk will be grounded in research conducted by the author and his colleagues over the last decade. This work includes personal interviews and quantitative surveys with scientists, as well as interviews of communication trainers, foundation leaders, fellowship-program managers, and others. The underlying ideas also originate in research about the social psychology of behavior change, trust and fairness. It also draws on thinking
This idea of leaning on a few key approaches is fairly normal—I think we all have a few favored approaches to communicating—but the idea of how to think more broadly and thus strategically I’ve come to think about a lot in the research I do with my various colleagues …
Interviews: trainers, scientific societies, foundations, fellowship programs
Surveys: Scientific societies, Canadian grant recipients, Scientists at AAU, part of a couple of local LTERs
Department of Energy and Kavli Foundation have asked a few colleagues and I to look at what the science communication literature says about basic science communication and the degree to which that might be different from research focused on applied communication …
Focus on five journals: PUS, SC , IJSE-B, JoSC …
Topics: Astronomy/Physics, Chemistry, Nanoscience/Nanotechnology
There are individual studies here and there but … it’s a tiny percentage of the overall percentage of content. The vast majority of the literature addresses issues of perceived risks and benefits of specific technologies or how to communicate on threats like climate change.
A lot of research doesn’t spell out the goals but they’re looking in the background …
What do we mean by goals?
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
Note … this slide suggests a reconceptualization of public engagement activities as tactics aimed at fostering system 2/systematic/central route processing by all participants. The key is that things like dialogue are great at fostering the motivation to process and that plain language is great at fostering the ability to process. Beliefs are not just beliefs about science, but also beliefs about others …
Also important to note that scientists’ beliefs, feelings, and frames should change if the engagement tactic is appropriately designed and the scientist is being reflective.
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
Key idea is deficit model thinking as a over reliance on one limited pathway towards behavior change …
Knowledge = Justified true belief …
Any of these beliefs could be knowledge …
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
The goal isn’t always explicit ..
We need to take communication seriously.
Option 1: If you have a goal, be honest about it and pursue it ethically
Option 2: If you don’t have an immediate goal, then consider …
Emphasize that tactics are what most trainers/training books focus
Note idea that you can be a really skilled tactician (clear? Vivid?) but focus on the wrong things (just explain science/results).
Could also add a slide about the fact that good communication is hard and we need a community of practitioners to help do it; we can’t expect individual scientists to carry the burden on their own.
Could also add a slide about the fact that good communication is hard and we need a community of practitioners to help do it; we can’t expect individual scientists to carry the burden on their own.
Option 1: If you have a goal, be honest about it and pursue it ethically
Option 2: If you don’t have an immediate goal, then consider …
God, give me grace to accept with serenitythe things that cannot be changed,Courage to change the thingswhich should be changed,and the Wisdom to distinguishthe one from the other.
Could also add a slide about the fact that good communication is hard and we need a community of practitioners to help do it; we can’t expect individual scientists to carry the burden on their own.