You are here: Articles --> 2010 -->
Editorial: Communicating in an atmosphere hostile to science
Vous êtes ici : Essais --> 2010 --> Editorial:
Communicating in an atmosphere hostile to science
Editorial: Communicating in an atmosphere
hostile to science
By Geoff Hart
Previously published as: Hart, G. 2010. Editorial:
Communicating in an atmosphere hostile to science. The Exchange 17(2):2,11–13.
Much of what we’ve been taught about communication is
based on a fallacy similar to that which afflicts traditional economics: the
notion that our audience is sufficiently rational that they will seek out all
the information they need to make a perfectly informed decision, and that they
will then make their decision rationally and objectively. Here, “rational” is
generally assumed to mean “in the way we expect them to behave based
on our preconceptions about the correct response”. The problem, as economists
are gradually beginning to acknowledge, is that most audiences are not rational
according to this definition. People have prejudices, emotions, and insufficient
time or energy remaining after dealing with their routine life stresses for
them to be eager to analyze complex arguments as if they were students preparing
for a test. Some may be incapable of even understanding our arguments, and
not because they’re stupid; understanding some arguments may require
advanced training that few possess.
Journalists exacerbate the problem, as Randall Munroe pointedly
remarks in his XKCD comic strip
about the current oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Darryl Cunningham
provides another
example related to the furor over whether vaccines cause autism: there’s
no evidence they do, and the journal article that proposed a connection has
been soundly debunked, but you wouldn’t know this from the press coverage.
Unfortunately, when we’re responsible for communicating with the general
public, we must often do so through journalists (including TV and radio reporters),
and that communication channel creates many problems for us. These include
the media’s need to sensationalize issues, but the more serious problems
are that so few journalists actually understand the science they’re covering
and that journalists are trained to seek balance by providing both sides of
a story, even if one of the opposing viewpoints is nonsense in any rational
sense.
In such an environment, it can become nearly impossible to
communicate successfully with a general audience. Indeed, no one solution will
let you succeed in all cases. But by understanding each of the abovementioned
problems and seeking ways to solve them, you can greatly increase your chance
of success. Here are some suggestions:
Prejudices
Everyone, including scientists, holds certain unchallenged
beliefs. These beliefs, whether conscious or not, affect how we think about
everything we see and hear. If the beliefs are sufficiently strong, we evaluate
all new knowledge based on whether it supports or contradicts those beliefs;
information that contradicts those beliefs is often discarded without further
consideration. Even our less-strongly-held beliefs affect the extent of our
willingness to consider new information fairly. To overcome these barriers
to communication, we must first understand that prejudices exist, what they
are, and how they cause audience members to prejudge what we’re going
to say.
Harnessing the energy of those beliefs is an important step
towards helping an audience overcome its prejudices. For example, we can begin
any communication by demonstrating our understanding of those beliefs. In doing
so, we gain enough willingness to listen that a skillfully communicated message
capable of sidestepping those beliefs rather than confronting them directly
will let us build on those beliefs, or perhaps even modify them, thereby helping
the audience learn something new. The key here is to recognize that communication
is not a form of combat or even a debate whose only goal is winning: our goal
should not be to crush our audience’s resistance, but rather to help
them recognize and consider our message despite their prejudices.
Emotions
Even the most rational person is governed to a greater or
lesser extent by their emotions, including anger, fear, and frustration. Given
that these emotions exist and that they affect all of us, we cannot simply
ignore them and hope that a purely logical argument will suffice. Scientific
communicators most often fail when they assume, based on their experience communicating
with scientists and engineers, that facts make the most persuasive argument
in all cases. That may be true once we can convince an audience to adopt a
dispassionate and objective stance towards what we’re trying to say.
But we can’t get there without first acknowledging and addressing their
emotions.
For example, an audience may often be angry because of something
that is not even remotely our fault, or something that may be our employer’s
fault. We must find a way to assuage their anger, perhaps through an admission
of guilt or fault, through an apology, or by providing tangible evidence that
we have done something or will shortly do something to remedy the situation.
Fear is another common reaction, often real and legitimate but sometimes created
primarily by a lack of understanding. Fear can be decreased by remaining calm,
acknowledging the magnitude of the fear, and demonstrating that we have a clear
understanding of what must be done to reduce the risk or the impacts if that
risk has become actualized. We cannot deny that fear, nor can we eliminate
it; all we can hope for is to find a way to help the audience deal with it.
Frustration is another problem, particularly if there is a history of the audience
lacking agency (i.e., having no way to exert some control over a situation).
We must empathize with that frustration, and seek solutions that will ease
it, such as giving audience members a chance to express their views and finding
ways to accommodate their views in any final consensus. (Simply acknowledging
their views is insufficient; we must provide tangible evidence those views
have changed our subsequent behavior.)
It should be obvious, but nonetheless requires repetition,
that all such approaches must be sincere. Most people have a well-honed ability
to detect insincerity, and any perception of insincerity can undermine all
subsequent attempts to communicate.
Complex concepts
The most interesting science is complex—often extremely
so. This means that even the scientists who study it and who have spent many
years attempting to master their subject may not have simple explanations or
answers to questions. In some cases, the complexity is irreducible, and the
full implications of a situation cannot be communicated in a single “sound
bite” suitable for the evening news. This is particularly true in the
presence of uncertainty: if you don’t know the answer, it can be difficult
to explain this in a way that doesn’t make you look like an idiot (and
therefore untrustworthy) for not knowing.
In such cases, the task becomes one of understanding the essential
take-home message you must deliver. That message must always be simpler than
the longer message you would prefer to deliver. Although you may do considerable
injustice to the complexity of a problem by oversimplifying, presenting the
core message in a defensible but incomplete manner generally offers an acceptable
compromise. Compare the following approaches:
- Wrong: “We don’t know which way the oil slick will spread.
The weather in this region is unpredictable, and it interacts with several
localized and regional currents that also affect the direction of water movement
both on the surface and in deeper layers. So the slick could end up traveling
in any direction.”
- Right: “The wind in this area blows mostly from the west, and is
currently pushing the oil slick towards the Florida coastline. If the wind
moves around to the north, which happens a few times per year, it will push
the slick out to sea and Florida will be spared. We don’t know whether
that will happen, but we’ll monitor the situation and keep everyone
posted.”
Journalists
Well-trained, competent science journalists certainly exist,
even in mass-media channels, and they’re our best hope for getting out
the right message. But they’re in the minority. The majority who cover
science, particularly on television, don’t understand science and don’t
understand that not all viewpoints are equally credible and worthy of airtime.
In such cases, we face the problem of seeing uninformed, non-credible speakers
given as much air time as the informed, credible speakers who have the information
that must reach the public. We also face the problem of journalists who present
the wrong information because they were overwhelmed by too much information
and missed the key message. Whenever we must rely on the media to spread our
message, we must therefore use the same tools our opponents use if we hope
to have our message heard and accepted:
- Learn to think in sound bites: Instead of trying to present a closely
reasoned argument that takes 5 or 10 minutes to explain, and seeing only
30 seconds of that message (usually the wrong 30 seconds) preserved and disseminated,
we must present only the 30 seconds that we want everyone to receive. Additional
information should be presented in similarly digestible sound bites.
- Provide written backup (press releases, handouts, white papers, etc.)
for our message, and give the media permission to reuse them. Some journalists
will simply copy what we’ve provided rather than trying to impose their
own spin on the message. Others will at least have something to provide a
reality check for their understanding.
- Strive for credibility: Hesitation, uncertainty, and muddled answers that
try to cover our collective ass in case we guess wrong all undermine credibility.
Having identified the sound bite, deliver it with full confidence, and if
you’re given more time, support it with evidence. If you’re given
even more time, be willing to discuss only the elements of the information
that are least likely to be misunderstood and miscommunicated. But never
lie or attempt to convey certainty when nobody knows the answer.
- Remember the message’s emotional content: Speaking in the persona
of the cold, stereotypical scientist, complete with lab coat, is doomed from
the start. Always choose a charismatic, charming speaker who can smile honestly
(if appropriate) or convincingly show their human concern for their audience
even in a crisis, and give them freedom to be human: let them laugh, frown,
or look scared, as appropriate. In short, establish an emotional connection
with the audience rather than a purely logical–rational connection.
The goal of communication with typical journalists is to establish
enough of a human connection that they will trust you and really listen to
what you have to say. You can then give them a message they can repeat quickly
and simply. Do this better than “the opposing viewpoint” and your
message will be prioritized.
Succeeding despite these obstacles
Each of these suggestions requires a profound understanding
of how the underlying obstacles affect the audience’s willingness to
listen and absorb your message, and accepting that your understanding must
change from situation to situation. There’s no shortcut; each time, you’ll
have to think through the full complexity of the communications context from
the audience’s perspective. Getting them to listen with minds at least
partially open is the indispensable first half of the battle. Telling them
the take-home sound bite, simplified until the compromises may make you wince,
is the equally crucial second half. If they’re still listening, you’ve
gained enough time to explore the issue in more depth, fleshing out the message
and finding ways to keep them listening respectfully while you do.
If you’ve participated in any success stories, why not
share them with readers of this newsletter?
My essays on scientific communication have now been collected in the following book:
Hart, G. 2011. Exchanges: 10 years of essays on scientific communication. Diaskeuasis Publishing, Pointe-Claire, Que. Printed version, 242 p.; eBook in PDF format, 327 p.
©2004–2024 Geoffrey Hart. All rights reserved.