RETURN TO CIVIC SCIENCE LAB MAIN PAGE
OVERVIEW
In the morning session, we will spend time discussing how science and expert advice is used in the policy process; and the different roles that scientists and their organizations can and should play. We will also discuss how scientists generally tend to view the public, the media and the political process and how these assumptions might influence their participation in public life.
In the afternoon session, we will move to discussing the factors that influence public understanding, judgements and decisions. This research has informed different approaches to public outreach, education and communication. For each approach, we will draw on examples relevant to issues and topics that you work on or care deeply about.
DAY 1 — TUES. MORNING: SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Articles
- Clark, F. & Illman, D. (2001). Dimensions of Civic Science. Science Communication,23 (5), 5-27. [PDF]
- Sarewitz, D. 2009. The Rightful Place of Science. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2009: 89-94. [PDF].
- Pielke, R.A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp 1-27) [PDF].
- Besley J. & Nisbet, M.C. (in press). How Scientists View the Public, the Media, and the Political Process. Public Understanding of Science [Summary of study HTML] [PDF of full study].
Video
- Pielke, R. (2013, Feb.) Promises & Paradoxes of Scientific Authority Panel. The STEPS Centre, University of Sussex, UK. [Video]
DAY 1 — TUES. AFTERNOON: MODELS & APPROACHES TO SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Articles
- CBC Radio (2008). Interview with Brian Wynne. How to Think about Science series. Listen to Podcast and/or read transcript of interview [PDF]
- Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. [PDF]
- Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication(pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge. [PDF]
- Lindenfeld, L.A., D.M. Hall, B. McGreavy, L. Silka, D. Hart. 2012. Creating a place for Communication Research in Sustainability Science. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature & Culture. Volume 6 (March), pp. 23-43 [PDF].
- Smith B, Baron N, English C, Galindo H, Goldman E, et al. (2013) COMPASS: Navigating the Rules of Scientific Engagement. PLoS Biol 11(4): e1001552. [HTML]
- Revkin, A. (2011, April 14). Climate, Communication and the Nerd Loop. The Dot Earth, New York Times.[Read and Watch Interview Randy Olson.]
Video
- Scheufele, D.A. (2012). The Macro View in Science Controversies. Sackler “Science of Science Communication” Colloquium, National Academies of Sciences [Video]
- Randy Olson talks about his book Don’t Be Such a Scientist [Video].
- Randy Olson talk to World Wildlife Fund: Dude Where’s My Climate Movement? [Video]
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1 – As a scientist, social scientist or professional working on behalf of an expert institution, what is your preferred role relative to public outreach and policymaking? How might this role change given the nature of an issue you may be working on or based on a career change?
2 – Think about individual scientists or organizations working either at the state or national level. Drawing on the Pielke reading and discussion, which scientists and organizations reflect the role of a) science arbiter ; b) issue advocate ; c) stealth advocate ; and d) honest broker? How effective have each of these individuals or organizations been?
3 – Think about the issues or topics that you are working on, care most deeply about, or are most familiar with. Drawing on the Brossard & Lewenstein reading, identify examples that reflect the a) the deficit model ; b) the social contextualist model ; c) the lay expertise model ; and d) the public engagement models of science communication. What factors account for why one of these models might have been adopted over another?