 |
| An amusing example of precisely inaccurate communication about volcanoes from a tourism company in Baños, Ecuador |
Risk communication is successful if it
reaches all of those who need it, is comprehended by the end user and received
within a timescale that they can make use of it. How we communicate science:
what we say, how we say it, who says it, why we say it, is vitally important
when the goal is to help people make informed decisions. This takes a wide variety of knowledge and expertise:
“Meeting that goal
requires collaboration between scientists with subject matter knowledge to
communicate and scientists with expertise in communication processes—along with
practitioners able to manage the process” Baruch
Fischhoff
Fischhoff - is a world leader in research
on risk communication and this post is focused on a recent publication of his
entitled “The sciences of Science Communication”.
Around volcanoes, and also when dealing
with other natural hazards, as scientists we often can’t afford to make
mistakes when communicating risk. Some do it well, some do it very badly – but
it is important for the new generation of scientists working with risk communication to learn
how to do it properly. We must ask ourselves: How can we not only get it right, but understand when we do, and
crucially why sometimes we get it wrong.
It is true in volcanology that often the
best risk communicators do it naturally. Some of this is intuitive; some of it
has been learned via a vast number of experiences, including some mistakes. In
this world, where we are increasingly interconnected socially, with information
available at the click of a finger – we may only get one chance to communicate
effectively – with so many alternative sources of information out there…we can
only expect to hold the public’s attention through competence, care, integrity,
reliability, fairness and openness (some of the dimensions of ‘trust’). So it
is important for us to learn from those who have experience and also to get
technical about it – in essence to understand the sciences of science communication.
In Fischoff’s recent paper, he describes 4
tasks for a science communicator:
Task 1: Identify the science most relevant to the decisions
that people face.
Task 2: Determine what people already know.
Task 3: Design communications to fill
the critical gaps (between what people know and need to know).
Task 4: Evaluate the adequacy of those communications.
Fischhoff
then goes on to describe a series of mistakes, common to many instances of
failed or inadequate risk communication.
Common
mistakes:
·
Did
they get the science wrong, and lose credibility?
·
Did
they get the wrong science, and prove irrelevant?
·
Did
they lack clarity and comprehensibility, frustrating their audiences?
·
Did
they travel through noisy channels, and not reach their audiences?
·
Did
they seem begrudging, rather than forthcoming?
·
Did
they fail to listen, as well as to speak?
·
Did
they try to persuade audiences that wanted to be informed, or vice versa?
So whether you are currently a risk
communicator or think you may be in that position in the future, write these
things down, think about them and don’t simply rely on being intuitively good
at it. Don’t take my word for it – read Fischhoff’s paper - it is really great (if you cant get it just
ask me for it).
Fischhoff,
B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14033–14039.
