|
|
|
|
|
From our Archives -
November 2013 |
|
Author: Roger Bernier, MPH, PhD “You can’t persuade someone you don’t respect”. That attention-grabbing statement was only one of many uttered by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Professor of Communication and Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, speaking at a colloquium held at the National Academy of Sciences in September in Washington DC. According to the Science Academies, the colloquium was organized because topics critical to the welfare of society are suffering from ineffective communication. Keynote Talk Social, behavioral, and decision scientists presented on “The Science of Science Communication” to help attendees better understand the complexities of successful science communication. The keynote address entitled“ Responding to the Attack on the Best Available Evidence” was given by Jamieson who tried to help her audience understand how scientists can communicate with the public in situations where trust has been lost, scientists are accused of not being impartial, and the public itself has come to see the facts through a partisan lens. Topics such as communicating uncertainty, belief and attitude formation about science topics, and social networks were also discussed. On the third day, participants had the option to attend concurrent workshops on climate change, evolution, obesity/nutrition, and nanotechnology. Prescription Jamieson’s prescription for improved communication involves efforts to breakdown the partisan filters that prevent persons from being able to see evidence more objectively. Techniques useful for this purpose include the use of evocative narratives and the use of clarifying metaphors. The “Lock-Down” Metaphor Jamieson’s example of such a “lock-down” metaphor is likening global warming to a driver in a car in the habit of traveling slightly above the speed limit. It does not mean that the speed itself will be the cause of a future accident, but it suggests that speeding makes it more likely that something else encountered such as an oil spot on the road will cause an accident. And if so, the accident will be more calamitous. This helps explain the difficult concept to grasp that because of global warming, the number and severity of weather events will increase, though not all such events will be caused by global warming. Not an easy concept to get across without an effective or “lock-down” metaphor, according to Jamieson. More Prescription Her prescription also includes speaking with a respectful voice, using impartial rhetoric, and envisioning the audience as an intelligent one worthy of engaging. This is the section of her talk where she stated “you can’t persuade someone you do not respect”. Common Premise She noted the importance of finding common ground with the audience, finding a common premise on which to build communication. Without this common premise she said, effective communication is not possible. “The audience has to invest meaning for the communication to work,” said Jamieson. By way of summary, Jamieson repeated that effective communication requires establishing that scientific consensus exists on an issue, establishing the credibility of experts based on past successes, and countering the partisan filter. This latter achievement requires explaining what we know and how we know it, employing evocative narrative, and using clarifying metaphors. Succeeding in communication, according to Jamieson, means we as a society will be more likely to lead the kind of lives that are compatible with good science. Scientists and Policy World During the question and answer period, Jamieson was asked if scientists should become more conversant with values so as to be more effective in disputes about evidence. She made a distinction between scientists operating in the world of science trying to describe what we know and how we know it from the world of policy where participants are debating alternatives for action. She said the expertise in these two worlds was different, and appeared to be discouraging scientists from entering the policy world because it risks the credibility of the scientists. A second questioner followed up to ask if Jamieson was really saying that making recommendations on the basis of evidence such as might occur for vaccines known to be effective was off limits for scientists. She said this was a “fuzzy area”, but said the case for vaccines should be made on the merits of evidence for safety and efficacy. Whether or not the government should mandate vaccines or pay for vaccines is another matter, she said, and appeared to call that off limits for scientists. Minority Views Another provocative question was asked about when it was appropriate or acceptable to ignore minority views since it is widely accepted that there will always be such a minority in a democracy. Jamieson answered that in a democracy we can resolve disputes or get consent by counting votes. She did not answer directly the question of what to do about minority views. She added that very often the goal may be to persuade one person with the power to decide and not 51% of any group since the power may actually reside in that president, governor, or other official.
Interested readers can
view videos of the first two days of presentations at: |
|
|
