Hi, I thought I had sent this to psci-com Friday night, but it seems to have
got lost. Apologies for the delay. Andy.
====
New Ways of Slicing the Cake: Implications of Recent Research for
Communications Strategies
A Science Communicators Forum at the British Association
Friday 8 September
The first paper of the afternoon was from myself. The text below is partly
the notes I did not use and partly my recollections of what I may have said.
After my bit, I've appended my briefer notes on other speakers'
contributions. Others may be able to contribute their notes or add to my
recollection.
====
Andy Boddington
New Developments in Public Understanding of Science
A View from the Public Understanding Bunker
In the UK, public understanding of science is traditionally said to have
started with COPUS in 1985. Of course, there was extensive science
communication activity before that but COPUS marked the start of organised
public understanding policy and action. So we are now a fifteen year old
teenager, amorous and anarchistic.
And, of course, teenagers are always being told off by their elders. In our
case, the age of 15 will chiefly be remembered for the Jenkins Report,
published in February this year. Formally a report of the House of Lords
Select Committee on Science and Technology, Lord Jenkins and his team
provided a succinct summary of the current state of public understanding and
public science policy. Of course, much of the detail was known to
enthusiasts of public understanding, but Jenkin's achievement was to provide
a magisterial overview backed by the authority of the House of Lords. It was
a timely report and widely welcomed.
In contrast, the Science White Paper published by the Office of Science and
Technology in July is less memorable, perhaps because it was talking to
business and government, rather than the public understanding community.
There is no doubt that there is a new mood in the public understanding
community. Promoting science, promoting knowledge, promoting understanding
are no longer enough. The new century is about dialogue.
The other event we will remember in 10 years time, is the Dyball-King report
(or King-Dyball, or OST/Wellcome Trust...) on science and the public. This
has been much covered in some early sessions and will be returned to. I want
to emphasise its importance and make a few specific comments.
Regrettably, although publication was due in April, the printed report is
not yet available so I am working from presentations in London and Edinburgh
and the Sainsbury White Paper.
The innovative contribution, which may make this a landmark study, is the
division of the public into six groups.
We await details of the methodology used to define the groups but as I
understand it, the groups are based on people's attitudes to science, i.e.
their responses to a set of statements about science. These attitudinal
groups show distinct demographic differences; a market researcher, for
example, would recognise the politically aware as social groups A/B. But
being A/B does not necessarily mean you are politically aware and therein
lies a difficulty with this study.
How do we recognise these groups amongst the public? When entertaining
people in my public understanding bunker with stories of amazing science, do
I automatically assume that the young man with a No. 1 haircut and a bolt
through his nose is in the "don't care" group and that the old codgers
clustered in the snug are members of "Not for me?" Stereotypes can be a
useful shorthand but can also be reckless and arrogant. We need to see the
full analysis before we can decide how the study will help us improve the
practice of public understanding.
And I am concerned about the names given to the groups. This handy shorthand
has a way of getting a life and importance of its own and already the
Dyball-King terms are debated. I'd personally prefer to call them Types A,
B, C...
The debate over genetically-modified foods peaked in early 1999, though it
remains very active. There are echoes of the BSE and irradiation debates
where politicians and policy-makers struggled to counter press and public
criticism-some of it informed, much of it not. John Durant has studied the
debate.
He has identified a build up of coverage before the peak, including a
Blair-Hague confrontation in the Commons. Then Dr Arpad Pusztai told us of
his GM potatoes and rats. Durant identifies a triggering event: a letter
from 22 scientists to the Guardian defending Pusztai. The Press thereafter
set the agenda. GM was not seen as a science story and they adopted a
campaigning rather than reporting stance.
This study is important as it helps us understand how science stories begin
to twist & blast through public opinion and scientific commonsense like a
tornado. It can take a long while before the cool down draught of science
can stop the heat of public and media concern rising. And like real-life
twisters, there is real-life damage: MMR, is one example.
Underlying the Jenkin report and the GM debate, is concern about risk but we
still understand little of how the public's understanding of risk is
affected by their degree of trust in science and politicians, and by
twisting stories in the media.
There is a need to study the public in real time. Think of what we would
have learnt if we had been interviewing members of each of the Dyball-King
publics over the weeks and months as the GM twister hit the media. We can't
stop twisters happening, but we can learn how to communicate a balanced
perspective to different segments of the public once they start.
This type of study, I call a "third generation study." The first generation
were the studies by Durant, Miller, Eurobarometer, etc. These looked at
whether the public knew whether the earth went round the sun and basic
attitudinal things, and we spent a long time arguing about what it all meant
.
The second generation of studies is trying to understand the structure of
the public (Dyball-King) and how media stories develop (Durant). The
Wellcome Trust has been conducting further surveys of science communicators
and scientists and these will eventually add to our second generation
debate.
What we need now are third generation studies that look at the interaction
between the public, media, politicians, scientists and communicators. These
need to be real-time studies to analyse the twisters as they happen, not as
historical events.
Two important questions for this audience:
* Are science communicators trusted facilitators in the new world of debate
(or are they seen as lobbyists for the science cause?)
* Now that we are beginning to understand scientists, media and the public,
can we understand the interactions between them?
====
Sheila Anderson. A Research Funder's View
Sheila spoke formally on behalf of NERC and informally on behalf of the
Research Councils. Perhaps she might supply her own notes. I recall...
She stressed that the Councils have a duty to say what they have done with
public money. But this is not the single aim. "We have failed to create
public trust [...and] science still has its language, private clubs and high
priests."
NERC (and the other Councils?) are pursuing a new list of drivers for the
public understanding and communication strategies, including Jenkins and the
Dyball-King report. They are exploring increasing public interest and
confidence in science through dialogue and access to Council discussions.
Sheila is heartened by a successful web-based Gene Flow consultation
conducted by NERC (described earlier on psci-com, I think), But programme
managers are also asking, "What if the public says no to GM?" Issues like
this are cascading through her organisation.
There was discussion about legitimisation of science communication
activities for scientists. Here the Higher Education Funding Councils and
DfEE were seen to be wanting.
====
Tim Reynolds. The Consultancy View
Tim Reynolds from Key Communications based his presentation on King-Dyball.
Much of that is familiar to psci-commers. He dwelled on the linear
relationship between public interest in science and the benefits they
perceive science to bring. I got the impression that he was suggesting that
increasing interest was the key to increasing public support.
[I may have noted this incorrectly as I have doubts that this relationship
is useful. I think it just shows that science consumers are selfish;
increase the benefits and they get more interested.]
It is more important to build confidence rather than understanding. We
should:
* Influence "Confident Believers" (formerly Politically Aware)
* Inform "Technophiles"
* Reinforce "Supporters"
* Address "Don't Cares"
* And stress the benefits to "Not for me."
There is no media for science consumers in the UK, however, all media have
time for good life style stories. The examples shown were sub-zero beer and
an article about the time tsar at NPL.
Scientists are stereotyped in the media and we need to address this.
Our aims should be to:
* emphasise the benefits and relevance to lifestyle of science
* increase its profile in tabloid media why looking in the future to new
media
* a long term strategy of integrating science with culture.
====
Anita Heward and Regan Forrest from the National Space Centre
These two should have got the job to run the Dome. I only made notes on
Regan's section.
"We cannot afford not to listen [to the public.]" They are concentrating on
making the Space Centre (opens Spring 2001) an attraction, while taking
education goals and subject matter seriously. Visitor behaviour is freewill
and they will do as little or as much as they like. "Top down" communication
won't work in this environment. The Exhibits need to work at many different
levels.
Evaluation is not an optional extra. The only way to know how visitors will
really react is to ask them. It is essential to keep focused on what is
important and build evaluation into the development process. It saves money
in the long run.
====
Discussion
I had to dash off during the discussion. Frank Burnett said something very
wise about this being a critical time and there being an opportunity to pull
together and avoid the fragmentation of the last 15 years. Over to you to
state your argument Frank.
Andy Boddington
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
