JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PSCI-COM Archives


PSCI-COM Archives

PSCI-COM Archives


PSCI-COM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PSCI-COM Home

PSCI-COM Home

PSCI-COM  2000

PSCI-COM 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: New Ways of Slicing the Cake

From:

"Burnet, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Burnet, Frank

Date:

Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:56:31 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (240 lines)


On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:28:36 +0100 
[log in to unmask] wrote:

> 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
> 

----------------------------------------
Dr Frank Burnet MBE
Principal Lecturer in the Public Understanding of Science
School of Interdisciplinary Sciences
UWE
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1QY

e-mail [log in to unmask]
tel 0117 976 3879
fax 0117 976 3871
mobile 07881 580523



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager