Framing Science Talk and Seminar at Cal Tech
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Public Policy, and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. Nisbet studies the role of communication and advocacy in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over over climate change, energy, and sustainability. Among awards and recognition, Nisbet has been a Visiting Shorenstein Fellow on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a Health Policy Investigator at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a Google Science Communication Fellow. In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as “essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,” and the New Republic highlighted his work as a “fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism."
Next week, I will be teaming up with Chris Mooney at Cal Tech for an evening lecture followed by a day long science communication seminar for the university's graduate students and post-docs. Details are below along with the suggested reading list.
Speaking Science Boot Camp
Matthew C. Nisbet & Chris Mooney
Over the past several years, the seemingly never-ending controversies over evolution, embryonic stem cell research, global climate change, and many other topics have led to a troubling revelation. Scientific knowledge, alone, does not always suffice when it comes to winning political arguments, changing government policies, or influencing public opinion. Put simply, many journalists, policymakers, and citizens consume and act on scientific information in a vastly different way than do the scientists who generate it. As a result, scientists and their organizations repeatedly face difficult challenges in explaining their knowledge to diverse groups of citizens.
As issues at the intersection of science and politics gain more and more attention, something beyond just scientific data--beyond "getting the facts out there"--will be necessary to break through to the public. But what are the new directions? It's time to question some central assumptions and focus on fresh ideas.
A conversation about new directions in science communication.
In this joint presentation, journalist Chris Mooney and communication professor Matthew Nisbet explain how scientists and their allies can "reframe" old debates in new ways, remaining true to the science but taking advantage of a fragmented media environment to connect with a broader American public.
This two-part event features a public lecture on Monday evening, followed by a more detailed, hands-on workshop on Tuesday.
Monday's lecture will serve as an introduction to interactions between science, the media, and the public. Growing out of the evening lecture -- but providing much more in-depth content -- the full-day workshop will provide a hands-on media primer, focusing on two critical issues: 1) how audiences find, understand, and use scientific information; 2) the knowledge and tools that scientists need to deal with the press. In other words, when journalists call you'll know what to do and what to say (and what not to say, too)."
SCIENCE, MEDIA, & THE PUBLIC
History, Concepts, and Principles
Burns, T.W. O'Connor, D.J., Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, (2), 183-202.
National Science Board (2008). Chapter 7: Public Attitudes and Understanding. National Science Indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
Kitzinger, J. (2006). The role of media in public engagement. In S. Miller (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. UK: Wellcome Trust.
Yankelovich D. (2003, summer). Winning greater influence for science. Issues in Science and Technology.
Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2007, October). The future of public engagement. The Scientist.
CBC Radio (2008). Interview with Brian Wynne. How to Think about Science series. **
Recent Controversies and Case Studies
Moser, S. & Dilling, L (2004). Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment 46 (10): 32-46.
Nisbet, M.C. (2008). Moving beyond Gore's message: A look back and ahead at climate change communications. Skeptical Inquirer Online.
Labov, J. and Pope, B.K. (2008). Understanding our audiences: The design and evolution of Science, Evolution, and Creationism. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(1): 20-24.
Nisbet, M.C. (in press). Expelled? Conflict and consensus in communicating about evolution. Kean Review. [Set the PDF to 100%]
Friedman, S.M.; Egolf, B.P. (2005). Nanotechnology: risks and the media. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 24, (4), 5 - 11. (Log in via library gateway.)
Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (12), 732 - 734. [Log in via library gateway.]
Editorial (2008). A little knowledge. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, (12). [Log in via library gateway.]
*Recommended additional reading:
Logan, R. (2001). Science mass communication: A conceptual history. Science Communication, 23, (2), 135-163.
Weigold, M. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23 (2), 164-193.
Bauer, M., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, (1) 79-95 .
House of Lords. 2000. Science and Society. London: UK House of Lords. See also government response.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at a cross-roads. Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 115-120.
Einsiedel, E. and Eastlick, D.L. (2001). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication 21 (4):323-343.
MEDIA STRATEGY AND RELATIONS
Willems, J. 2003. Bringing down the barriers - public communication should be part of common scientific practice. Nature 422, 470.
Russell, C. (2006). Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting
on Science and Public Policy. Working Paper, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Harvard University.
Mooney, C. & Nisbet, M.C. (2005, Sept./Oct.). When coverage of evolution shifts to the political and opinion pages, the scientific context falls away, unraveling Darwin. Columbia Journalism Review, 31-39.
Revkin, A. (2007). Climate Change as News: Challenges in Communicating Environmental Science. In J.C. DiMento & P.M. Doughman (Eds.), Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 139-160..
Nisbet, M.C. & Mooney, C. (2006). The next big storm? Skeptical Inquirer Online.
* Recommended additional reading.
Hayes, R. & Grossman, D. (2006). A Scientist's guide to talking with the media. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Metcalfe Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting (2007). Workshop Reports: Science Communications and the News Media.
Firefighters in California are still struggling to contain several wildfires nearly one week after they broke out.
- Hundreds of people are still missing after three wildfires spread across Northern and Southern California last week.
- 48 of the 50 deaths occurred after the Camp Fire blazed through the town of Paradise, north of Sacramento.
- On Tuesday night, a fourth wildfire broke out, though it's mostly contained.
We know the dangers of too little sleep. Now for the other side of the story.
- Western University researchers found that sleeping over eight hours per night results in cognitive decline.
- Oversleepers suffer similar difficulties on certain cognitive tests as those who sleep under seven hours.
- Not all the news is bad: One night of oversleeping results in a cognitive boost.
Protected animals are feared to be headed for the black market.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.