Scientists are expected to engage with the public, especially when society faces challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change, but what public engagement means to scientists is not clear. We use a triangulated, mixed-methods approach combining survey and focus group data to gain insight into how pre-tenure and tenured scientists personally conceptualize public engagement. Our findings indicate that scientists’ understanding of public engagement is similarly complex and diverse as the scholarly literature. While definitions and examples of one-way forms of engagement are the most salient for scientists, regardless of tenure status, scientists also believe public engagement with science includes two-way forms of engagement, such as citizen and community involvement in research. These findings suggest that clear definitions of public engagement are not necessarily required for its application but may be useful to guide scientists in their engagement efforts, so they align with what is expected of them. 
                        more » 
                        « less   
                    
                            
                            Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high
                        
                    
    
            Abstract Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence. 
        more » 
        « less   
        
    
                            - Award ID(s):
- 1754740
- PAR ID:
- 10292930
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Climatic Change
- Volume:
- 165
- Issue:
- 3-4
- ISSN:
- 0165-0009
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
- 
            
- 
            Abstract Climate change poses a multifaceted, complex, and existential threat to human health and well-being, but efforts to communicate these threats to the public lag behind what we know how to do in communication research. Effective communication about climate change’s health risks can improve a wide variety of individual and population health-related outcomes by: (1) helping people better make the connection between climate change and health risks and (2) empowering them to act on that newfound knowledge and understanding. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight communication methods that have received empirical support for improving knowledge uptake and/or driving higher-quality decision making and healthier behaviors and to recommend how to apply them at the intersection of climate change and health. This expert consensus about effective communication methods can be used by healthcare professionals, decision makers, governments, the general public, and other stakeholders including sectors outside of health. In particular, we argue for the use of 11 theory-based, evidence-supported communication strategies and practices. These methods range from leveraging social networks to making careful choices about the use of language, narratives, emotions, visual images, and statistics. Message testing with appropriate groups is also key. When implemented properly, these approaches are likely to improve the outcomes of climate change and health communication efforts.more » « less
- 
            null (Ed.)The earth sciences, all sciences, are doing more and more of their activities online. Although moving online was previously a well-established trend, the COVID-19 crisis has accelerated this, as faculty, teachers, and students came to understand all too well during 2020. Ordinary activities, such as field trips, field camps, and even professional meetings like GSA 2020 Connects Online, have moved mostly online (Tikoff et al., 2020). We have had to devise new ways of teaching that are entirely outside of our experience. Rather than wistfully wishing for a return to times past, the current situation is an opportunity to explore change and depart from our old ways of doing things, striving to make our science and our geology richer to each other. Returning to and reliving the past is what we do in our geology, but it should not be what we do as geologists and scientists. At the same time, it is becoming more critical for earth scientists, and all scientists, to better engage the public and stakeholders in their work, their data, and their insights and conclusions. We have been facing not only a pandemic of disease but also a pandemic of climate change accompanied by the malady of denying science. Because the subject of geology is our shared planet and environment, geoscientists can present much of their work in a way that is relevant to the public. We have an advantage in that the public can see what we do, look directly at what we study, and appreciate where samples come from for our analyses. The basis of our science surrounds us. The online world further opens our science, whether in geologic maps, pictures of thin sections of rocks, or a numerical age for a sample, to general observation. This new openness and connectedness can give us the power of remote participation and accessmore » « less
- 
            What kinds of taxation are least objectionable to voters? The question is a classic preoccupation of public officials and social scientists alike. We exploit two advances that make it possible to shed new light on this question. The first is a large, new corpus of digitized documents describing municipal tax policies of heterogeneous design that have been directly subjected to popular referendum in the state of California. The second is a suite of new computational methods for the analysis of large corpora of texts and their associated quantitative metadata. By applying these new methods to those new data, we show that tax policies of different description vary systematically in their popularity at the ballot box. We find that official descriptions of tax policy differ along two interpretable dimensions that are associated with voters’ willingness to approve the tax. We interpret these dimensions as risk pooling and community orientation, and we show that measuring these dimensions can modestly improve our ability to predict the popularity of a tax, relative to a conventional regression specification that omits information about qualitative policy design. We discuss implications of our findings for the research on tax policy design.more » « less
- 
            Collaborating scientists and storytellers successfully built a university-based science-in-action video storytelling model to test the research question: Can university scientists increase their relatability and public engagement through science-in-action video storytelling? Developed over 14 years, this science storytelling model produced more than a dozen high-visibility narratives that translated science to the public and featured scientists, primarily environmental and climate scientists, who are described in audience surveys as relatable people. This collaborative model, based on long-term trusting partnerships between scientists and video storytellers, documented scientists as they conducted their research and together created narratives intended to humanize scientists as authentic people on journeys of discovery. Unlike traditional documentary filmmaking or journalism, the participatory nature of this translational science model involved scientists in the shared making of narratives to ensure the accuracy of the story's science content. Twelve science and research video story products have reached broad audiences through a variety of venues including television and online streaming platforms such as Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Netflix, PIVOT TV, iTunes, and Kanopy. With a reach of over 180 million potential public audience viewers, we have demonstrated the effectiveness of this model to produce science and environmental narratives that appeal to the public. Results from post-screening surveys with public, high school, and undergraduate audiences showed perceptions of scientists as relatable. Our data includes feedback from undergraduate and high school students who participated in the video storytelling processes and reported increased relatability to both scientists and science. In 2022, we surveyed undergraduate students using a method that differentiated scientists' potential relatable qualities with scientists' passion for their work, and the scientists' motivation to help others, consistently associated with relatability. The value of this model to scientists is offered throughout this paper as two of our authors are biological scientists who were featured in our original science-in-action videos. Additionally, this model provides a time-saving method for scientists to communicate their research. We propose that translational science stories created using this model may provide audiences with opportunities to vicariously experience scientists' day-to-day choices and challenges and thus may evoke audiences' ability to relate to, and trust in, science.more » « less
 An official website of the United States government
An official website of the United States government 
				
			 
					 
					
 
                                    