Draft slides for Dec. 8 presentation as part of the National Academies Roundtable on Public Interfaces in the Life Sciences. bit.ly/1fYaBTc #NASInterface

1. Science Communication and Public Engagement:
Major Models and Approaches
Matthew C. Nisbet
Associate Professor
School of Communication
American University
Washington D.C.
Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication
National Academies, Washington DC 12.09.13
www.climateshiftproject.org/NASinterface
@MCNisbet #NASInterface

2. The Popularization and Dissemination Model
 Engages a core audience of science
enthusiasts who can comment, share, and
repurpose.
 Can reach through incidental exposure nonattentive, broader publics.
 Can shape the decisions and thinking of
policymakers, journalists and funders.
 For scientists, can build personal brand,
increase citation impact, influence scientific
peers, and develop skills and experience.
@MCNisbet

3. Popularization & The Cycle of Hype
 Emphasis by funding agencies on broader
impacts puts pressure on scientists and
institutions to “oversell” their findings.
 Media coverage emphasizes near term societal
benefits and market development with less
emphasis on uncertainty and possible risks.
 Hype risks credibility and trust in science and
may undermine ability to do basic research.
 Increasingly defines science and higher
education in terms of economic development and
job growth.
@MCNisbet

4. More Scientific Knowledge = More Disagreement?
@MCNisbet

5. More Carl Sagans?
Social Identity and Communication
@MCNisbet

6. Scientists’ Faulty Intuition:
Shared Identity, Information Sources & Assumptions
@MCNisbet

7. The Strategic Communication Model
Messaging By Audience Segment and By Way of Opinion Leaders
@MCNisbet

8. Audience Segmentation, Framing & Opinion Leaders:
Climate Change and Biomedical Research
@MCNisbet

9. Strategic Communication Campaigns:
Frictions and Trade-Offs
 Raises questions about conflict of interest and
manipulation.
 Difficulty coordinating message strategy across
groups and organizations.
 Often serves to increase polarization and divisions.
Increased targeting = increased echo chambers.
 Does strategic communication lead to effective
policy?
 Under what conditions does broader public matter
to policymaking?
 Defines public as spectators, consumers or voters
but not as active participants in decisions.
@MCNisbet

10. Public Engagement and Dialogue Model:
Deliberative Forums, Public Meetings, Digital News Forums
Seeks to “democratize” the governance of science
and technology.
 Can enhance civic capacity of regions, creating
opportunities to debate and collaborate.
Can increase participant trust and knowledge,
soften group differences and polarization.
Informs policy options, adapts knowledge to
localized contexts or specialized cases.
Questions regarding representativeness and
reach, giving visibility to minority views, or criticized
as just another “public relations” strategy.
@MCNisbet

11. Worldwide Views on Biodiversity
@MCNisbet

12. Stakeholder Driven Science and Lay Expertise Model
Research that effectively addresses the needs of
society requires “co-production” with public.
Emphasis on research that is useable, problem
solving and socially acceptable; aligning research
efforts with national, state or local needs.
Promotes enhanced trust, appreciation and
support for research institution among public,
stakeholders and policymakers.
Can be time consuming, resource intensive,
“messy,” does not fit easily with traditional
collaboration, publication and credit model.
@MCNisbet

13. www.ClimateShiftProject.org/NASInterface
@MCNisbet