During our April Twitter chat, we discussed the topic of “Building Public Trust in Science: Communicating Science Across the Partisan Divide.” We were joined by special guest, Mark Smith (@MS71541719), Honorable Mention Winner of our State Your Mission Challenge and former climate change skeptic turned environmental advocate. To kick off our discussion, we briefly reviewed the recent article, “Scientific Risk Communication about Controversial Issues Influences Public Perceptions of Scientists’ Political Orientations and Credibility” by Emily Vraga, et al. Check out the summary of the article here.
This article highlighted the recent phenomenon of science (and by default, scientists) becoming politicized, particularly around certain issues that are often the focus of partisan debates, such as climate change.
- How can scientists engage in essential science communication about polarized issues with members of the public who may not agree with the scientist’s message or perceived position on a respective issue?
- How can science communication approaches build meaningful connections with the public in ways that meet people where they are?
- Can effective science communication that specifically addresses conservative audiences enhance scientific learning and build trust across the partisan divide?
A LOT of great insights emerged from our discussion in thinking about building trust to communicate science across the partisan divide. Below are the big ideas summarized from our Twitter chat.
What is risk?
Risk is ultimately perception.
#scicommjc Risk perception and risk absorbtion is the way to do this, in my own opinion. it’s about impacts the family unit or immediate social structure in near real time, as opposed to risk that can be absorbed over time
— Mark Smith (@MS71541719) April 11, 2018
Risk is best understood in relation to something. When communicating about risk, setting the “risk” in comparison to something tangible, rather than talking about it in the abstract, may support more effective risk communication.
Agreed. And "risk" – not unlike trust – is best understood in-relation-to-something. It's difficult to describe or identify risk or trust as abstractions but become more clear when paired with a concrete action, person, science endeavor, etc. #scicommjc https://t.co/W23APMmdeD
— James T. Spartz (@JTspartz) April 11, 2018
It’s difficult to describe or identify risk or trust as abstractions but become more clear when paired with a concrete action, person, science endeavor, etc.
@JTspartz So, sticking to things that people can actually tangibly experience to demonstrate the concepts associated with climate change rather than talking about climate change directly? #scicommjc https://t.co/FokIx3yEpk
— SciComm Journal Club (@scicomm_jc) April 11, 2018
“Trust is a gateway to risk communication.”
In other words, for risk to be communicated effectively, the audience needs to perceive the communicating scientist as someone that they can trust.
Trust is a gateway in risk communication #scicommjc https://t.co/FjojPPvOSS
— Sherry Nouraini (@snouraini) April 11, 2018
Environment matters for trust building.
If possible, find non-political “neutral” space for interactions when trying to build trust and facilitate communication across the partisan divide.
My read on the paper was that the shared identity established by the topic dictated the need for trust building. If a different context is applied, where a different shared identity is more prevalent, would that make any difference re: trust #scicommjc
— Kishore Hari (@sciencequiche) April 11, 2018
This is an interesting question… I'm not sure that marches offer much in the way of exposure to & interaction with diverse political viewpoints. Marches do offer opportunities for dialogue & deliberation with people who support the premise of the march though. #scicommjc
— Heather Conklin (@HC_Conklin) April 12, 2018
Culture is legitimate and important for science communication.
As science communicators, we must recognize cultural differences between groups and that the concerns and issues within particular cultural groups are legitimate (i.e., true for the people in the respective group).
#scicommjc When working in a disaster area, everyone has concerns. We coined a phrase of "looking with American eyes" at a problem, failing to understand the spoecific cultural nuances that addressed issues important to both sides
— Mark Smith (@MS71541719) April 11, 2018
Skepticism can be an asset in science communication.
Skepticism plays an important role in science communication both for the communicator and the person with whom she/he is communicating.
Interesting, I had a student in my #climatecomm class that said something similar. He said as Vietnam War veterans they rarely trust information they receive #scicommjc https://t.co/DIam2Pv8Sj
— Sherry Nouraini (@snouraini) April 11, 2018
Did your military training and experience help you see the value in identifying (and then setting aside) first impressions in order to check one's biases and more effectively assess the situation? #scicommjc https://t.co/YQApASalR6
— James T. Spartz (@JTspartz) April 11, 2018
Other advice I've seen is that when someone reacts with a strong "skeptic" response, that is an emotional response — not a logical response. So, for communicators, actively listening and trying to understand where someone is coming from emotionally is key. Then engage #scicommjc https://t.co/HjlpKJ2NKJ
— James T. Spartz (@JTspartz) April 11, 2018
Listening is harder than it sounds.
Question for everyone: How can #scicommers engage in essential science communciation about polarized issues, such as #climatechange, with members of the public who may not agree with our message or perceived position on a given issue? #scicommjc
— Heather Conklin (@HC_Conklin) April 11, 2018
actually the reflective listening is a mechanism that's part of the role play but the point of the exercise is to have people essentially talk themselves out of their own objections / discomfort with using future climate information, deviated from published standards, etc.
— Trevor Murdock (@tqmurdock) April 11, 2018
Start small. Focus initially on relationship building.
I think the idea of starting small is hugely important. We've lost our citizen-to-citizen connections, which were powerful ways to exchange ideas and information. We need civic engagement for science. #scicommjc
— Heather Conklin (@HC_Conklin) April 11, 2018
Identify commonalities as a starting point.
Start by focusing on something that all people in the communication interaction have in common and can agree on (even if it isn’t always the facts).
Also, it helps to have a more nuanced view of who we are talking with. Dismissives can never be swayed; cautious may sound doubtful but are open to dialogue. https://t.co/smRnO3hmrQ
— Katharine Hayhoe (@KHayhoe) April 11, 2018
@ellenruth206 Yes, starting by establishing basic facts that all can agree on is important to build enough common ground for on-going discussion, especially in the current era of #alternativefacts. #scicommjc https://t.co/iP55Ypo56T
— SciComm Journal Club (@scicomm_jc) April 11, 2018
Be familiar and present.
Go where the people with whom you want to communicate tend to congregate. Preferably, come with someone who is a trusted advocate and belongs to that community. Come with the goal of listening meaningfully, rather than the goal of changing minds.
Know who you are talking to.
Other advice I've seen is that when someone reacts with a strong "skeptic" response, that is an emotional response — not a logical response. So, for communicators, actively listening and trying to understand where someone is coming from emotionally is key. Then engage #scicommjc https://t.co/HjlpKJ2NKJ
— James T. Spartz (@JTspartz) April 11, 2018
Twitter as a forum for listening???
right! It's incredibly hard to do, actually. It takes quite a bit of patience. And what's a good platform for this? Can you really listen and respond over twitter.. is in-person better? (or just more emotional?) What's the safest space for such listening.. #scicommjc
— Mariya V. PhD (@Healthy_PhD) April 11, 2018
Twitter is great for listening actually, but not for conversation, because trolls. #scicommjc
— Sherry Nouraini (@snouraini) April 11, 2018
I’m really interested in the two related issues: I) that if we really listen to another person then we both go away changed as a result of the interaction and ii) that online text-based tools can be challenging for this for multiple reasons.
— Lou Woodley (@LouWoodley) April 11, 2018
Check out our new ScicommJC podcast where we chat more with Mark about the role of former skeptics as current science advocates for innovative science communication.
What is your take on all that we discussed?