Chris has been posting his thoughts on framing, and while we share many ideas, it's time I provide my own perspective. You see, I'm often mistaken for my coblogger, and while I do understand a thing or two about storms and climate, we're not one in the same. So with that in mind... [deep breath], let's get down to making sense of framing science. There is much I have to say on this topic, and could not possibly do so in a single post, so I would like to expand upon the premise written yesterday that has been discussed a good deal inthecommentsthatfollowed:
6. Rather, you have to pare down these highly complex issues--or "frame" them--selectively highlighting just those aspects of the issue that will resonate with the core values of the particular audience (and there are different audiences, of course, and different frames will work for them).
Sort of. I've been reading that post's thread with interest and several readers have highlighted understandable reservations over this particular point. In my opinion however, it would be improved upon by including the significance of context. Incorporate that final caveat Chris, and I become more satisfied because experience has convinced me that framing science is necessary... sometimes. Consider climate legislation in Congress. A staffer on the Hill is already short on time between meetings on appropriations, homeland security, energy, the latest crisis overseas, and prepping his boss for a statement on health care. You're a scientist with 30 minutes to make your case on what excess carbon in the atmosphere does to our environment. You're armed with charts, figures, stats, and p-values, but what you don't know is you're the fifth Ph.D. visiting this office on the topic this week--and it's only Wednesday. And it happens you're also providing the fifth different explanation. Joe staffer listens patiently. He smiles and nods pondering why scientists can't get their story straight or stick to a single point. His mind wanders to that movie in 2006 by the would-be president as he wonders why you'd expect him to be familiar with details of the carbon cycle on the detailed packet you provided. Cards are exchanged and you're thanked for the information. 'Would you like our intern to give you a tour of the Capitol?' You see, when I worked in the Senate, I learned early on that in policy discussions, science suffers from a tremendous communication problem. There's a lot to framing well beyond policy, but I use this as an example of why it's so necessary to improve the way we convey what we do. Long term readers may remember I've described this before in a similar way as what I call The Lorax Phenomenon.
We're trained to 'speak science' and get lost in a world of complex figures and soft spoken symposia. Our message is undermined because we understate its significance. Policymakers are bombarded with all sorts of buzz words that don't convey the gravity of the situation. This isn't merely about CO2 emissions, we're experiencing a language crisis.
There is absolutely a time an place for framing science. As scientists, we must learn to communicate effectively in ways that resonate beyond academia to broader audiences. Translation: We need to repackage our delivery sometimes to reach beyond the ivory towers when we have a significant message. Do I have all the answers for how to go about this? Certainly not. Further, it's extremely dependent on the context of a given situation. But I think it's necessary to recognize that there are times we should be working with folks in the marketing and business sectors collaboratively to understand the best means to convey what we do.
This is not only possible, it's long been employed on campaigns fighting heart disease, the tobacco industry, and on and on. By crossing into the social sciences and involving expert economists and anthropologists, we'll be better equipped to incorporate an interdisciplinary understanding of why people make decisions (from game theory to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons) into our traditional approach toward informing sound legislation.
In Congress, I regularly observed communication break down because many scientists were not well equipped to make a convincing and cogent argument. I do not advocate spin, but I do encourage a patient approach to conveying what we do in an honest way that loses no substance and engages nonscientists to be interested in our work. As Jane Goodall once said, 'Only if we understand can we care.' And only when we care, will we make decisions in policy that improve the state of science and our home terra.
