An official website of the United States government
The science associated with assessing natural hazard phenomena and the risks they pose contains many layers of complex and interacting elements, resulting in diverse sources of uncertainty. This creates a challenge for effective communication, which must consider how people perceive that uncertainty. Thus, we conducted twenty-five mental model interviews in Aotearoa New Zealand with participants ranging from scientists to policy writers and emergency managers, and through to the public. The interviews included three phases: an initial elicitation of free thoughts about uncertainty, a mental model mapping activity, and a semi-structured interview protocol to ex- plore further questions about scientific processes and their personal philosophy of science. Quali- tative analysis led to the construction of key themes, including: (a) understanding that, in addi- tion to data sources, the ‘actors’ involved can also be sources of uncertainty; (b) acknowledging that factors such as governance and funding decisions partly determine uncertainty; (c) the influ- ence of assumptions about expected human behaviours contributing to “known unknowns'; and (d) the difficulty of defining what uncertainty actually is. Participants additionally highlighted the positive role of uncertainty for promoting debate and as a catalyst for further inquiry. They also demonstrated a level of comfort with uncertainty and advocated for ‘sitting with uncertain- ty’ for transparent reporting in advice. Additional influences included: an individual's under- standing of societal factors; the role of emotions; using outcomes as a scaffold for interpretation; and the complex and noisy communications landscape. Each of these require further investiga- tion to enhance the communication of scientific uncertainty.
more »
« less
Differences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication
We conducted mental model interviews in Aotearoa NZ to understand perspectives of uncertainty associated with natural hazards science. Such science contains many layers of interacting uncertainties, and varied understandings about what these are and where they come from creates communication challenges, impacting the trust in, and use of, science. To improve effective communication, it is thus crucial to understand the many diverse perspectives of scientific uncertainty.Participants included hazard scientists (e.g., geophysical, social, and other sciences), professionals with some scientific training (e.g., planners, policy analysts, emergency managers), and lay public participants with no advanced training in science (e.g., journalism, history, administration, art, or other domains). We present a comparative analysis of the mental model maps produced by participants, considering individuals’ levels of training and expertise in, and experience of, science.A qualitative comparison identified increasing map organization with science literacy, suggesting greater science training in, experience with, or expertise in, science results in a more organized and structured mental model of uncertainty. There were also language differences, with lay public participants focused more on perceptions of control and safety, while scientists focused on formal models of risk and likelihood.These findings are presented to enhance hazard, risk, and science communication. It is important to also identify ways to understand the tacit knowledge individuals already hold which may influence their interpretation of a message. The interview methodology we present here could also be adapted to understand different perspectives in participatory and co-development research.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2103713
- PAR ID:
- 10579273
- Publisher / Repository:
- Frontiers
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Communication
- Volume:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 2297-900X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Many of our generation’s most pressing environmental science problems are wicked problems, which means they cannot be cleanly isolated and solved with a single ‘correct’ answer (e.g., Rittel 1973; Wirz 2021). The NSF AI Institute for Research on Trustworthy AI in Weather, Climate, and Coastal Oceanography (AI2ES) seeks to address such problems by developing synergistic approaches with a team of scientists from three disciplines: environmental science (including atmospheric, ocean, and other physical sciences), AI, and social science including risk communication. As part of our work, we developed a novel approach to summer school, held from June 27-30, 2022. The goal of this summer school was to teach a new generation of environmental scientists how to cross disciplines and develop approaches that integrate all three disciplinary perspectives and approaches in order to solve environmental science problems. In addition to a lecture series that focused on the synthesis of AI, environmental science, and risk communication, this year’s summer school included a unique Trust-a-thon component where participants gained hands-on experience applying both risk communication and explainable AI techniques to pre-trained ML models. We had 677 participants from 63 countries register and attend online. Lecture topics included trust and trustworthiness (Day 1), explainability and interpretability (Day 2), data and workflows (Day 3), and uncertainty quantification (Day 4). For the Trust-a-thon we developed challenge problems for three different application domains: (1) severe storms, (2) tropical cyclones, and (3) space weather. Each domain had associated user persona to guide user-centered development.more » « less
-
Deniz, Elif Ulutaş (Ed.)Effective science communication and stakeholder engagement are crucial skills for climate scientists, yet formal training in these areas remains limited in graduate education. The National Science Foundation Research Traineeship (NRT) at Auburn University (AU) addresses this gap through an innovative program combining science communication training with co-production approaches to enhance climate resiliency of built, natural, and social systems within the Southeastern United States (US). This paper evaluates the effectiveness of two novel graduate-level courses: one focused on science communication for non-technical audiences and another combining co-production methods with practical internship experience. Our research employed a mixed-methods approach, including a comprehensive analysis of course catalogs from 146 research-intensive universities and qualitative assessment of student experiences through surveys and descriptive exemplars. Analysis revealed that AU’s NRT program is unique among peer institutions in offering both specialized science communication training and co-production internship opportunities to graduate students across departments. Survey data from 11 program participants and detailed case studies of three program graduates demonstrated significant professional development benefits. Key outcomes included enhanced stakeholder engagement capabilities, improved science communication skills, and better preparation for both academic and non-academic careers. These findings suggest that integrating structured science communication training with hands-on co-production experience provides valuable preparation for climate scientists. The success of AU’s program model indicates that similar curriculum structures could benefit graduate programs nationwide, particularly in preparing students to effectively communicate complex scientific concepts to diverse audiences and engage with stakeholders in climate resilience efforts.more » « less
-
Synopsis Cross-disciplinary research enables us to tackle complex problems that require expertise from different fields. Such collaborations involve researchers who have different perspectives, communication styles, and knowledge bases, and can produce results far greater than the sum of their parts. However, in an era of increasing scientific specialization, there exist many barriers for students and early-career researchers (ECRs) interested in training and undertaking interdisciplinary research endeavors. This perspective examines the challenges that students and ECRs perceive and experience in cross-disciplinary work and proposes pathways to create more inclusive and welcoming research environments. This work emerges from a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded workshop held during the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) Annual Meeting in January 2023 in Austin, TX. The workshop brought together seasoned interdisciplinary scientists with undergraduate and graduate students to identify and discuss perceived challenges through small group discussions and experience sharing. Through summarizing a range of student concerns about embarking on careers as interdisciplinary scientists and identifying ways to dismantle institutional and lab management-level barriers, we aim to promote an inclusive and collaborative problem-solving environment for scientists of all experience levels.more » « less
-
Abstract Scientific associations exist to serve their members and advance their science. They also provide a platform for scientists to communicate their science and engage with the public, such as hosting free resources on their web pages and organizing outreach activities with local communities. Historically, scientific associations were often internally focused. Despite the common stereotype of exclusive clubs of gentleman naturalists, there are numerous examples since the 17th century of scientific associations encouraging public engagement. This became increasingly common, and throughout the last several decades, scientific associations like the American Association for Anatomy (AAA) have been working to make changes in how science, scientists, and the public work together to produce the best scientific outcomes. This viewpoint defines different levels of relationships between the scientist and the public and how they affect outcomes related to the public's trust in science and scientists. It then provides a historical perspective on how associations have contributed to the communication of science. Lastly, it discusses the role of associations in science communication and public engagement and whether it is important for associations and why. It concludes with examples of the strategic programs of AAA that demonstrate how scientific associations can support public engagement, resulting in benefits to the public, scientists, and the anatomical sciences.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1366995
