doi:10.1144/SP305.11 2008; v. 305; p. 107-121 Geological Society, London, Special Publications

 Laurance J. Donnelly  

geoforensic investigationsfrom volcanic, mining, exploration, geotechnical, police and Communication in geology: a personal perspective and lessons 

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

serviceEmail alerting

article to receive free email alerts when new articles cite thisclick here

requestPermission to seek permission to re-use all or part of this article click here

SubscribePublications or the Lyell Collection

to subscribe to Geological Society, London, Specialclick here

Notes  

Downloaded by on 30 October 2008

London © 2008 Geological Society of

Communication in geology: a personal perspective and lessons

from volcanic, mining, exploration, geotechnical, police and

geoforensic investigations

LAURANCE J. DONNELLY

Halcrow Group Ltd, Deanway Technology Centre, Wilmslow Road, Handforth,

Cheshire SK9 3FB, UK (e-mail: DonnellyLJ@Halcrow.com)

Abstract: Geologists are frequently required to convey the results, advice and recommendationsfrom geological investigations to a variety of end users. Often, it is the communication of theinformation that is the most challenging and can be more difficult than the investigation itself.Most of these investigations use highly sophisticated scientific techniques and geologicalterminology. When combined with cultural and language barriers, and social, political, religiousor economic constraints, this makes it difficult to convey the correct message, and for the recipientto understand the implications of the geological information. The failure to effectively andaccurately communicate this message may reduce the usefulness of the information beingprovided. Communication must be considered part of a geological investigation because ifthe correct message is not conveyed properly, or is misunderstood, the consequences can becatastrophic. Communication is an ability that professional geologists must have to interactsuccessfully with colleagues, other professionals and the public. It is a skill learnt by trainingand experience. Spoken communication relies on interpersonal skills and the ability to conveyinformation effectively, confidently and consistently. This paper provides case studies anddraws upon the experiences of the author.

For almost two decades, the author has participated inseveral geological projects around the world. Theseprojects have included the monitoring and predictionof geological hazards (e.g. volcanoes and landslides),mining hazards (e.g. subsidence, fault reactivation,fissures and mine gas emissions), geotechnicalground investigations, mineral exploration, and theprovision of geological expertise to support policesearches and forensic investigations. Althoughmany of these projects have been technically challen-ging, requiring geological judgements to be made,often with incomplete data and information, it is thecommunication of complex geological informationthat has been, and remains, the most challenging.

The results, advice and recommendations fromgeological investigations are subsequently con-veyed to end users, clients, policy-makers, thepublic or the media. The recipient of this infor-mation may be other technical specialists ornon-technical people, or both. Typical recipientsof geological information range from school-children to specialists in their respective fields.

Geologists have not been (conventionally)trained in the skills of communication, so how dogeologists convey the complex technical geologicalinformation to the decision- or policy-makers, andhow do they overcome the physical, cultural, politi-cal, social, religious and interpersonal constraintsthat exist in different parts of the world duringcommunication? The principal objectives of this

paper are to raise awareness of the importance ofcommunication, to outline some of the problemsin communication, and to see how these havebeen overcome. It highlights some of the morebasic fundamentals of communication, and itdraws primarily on the experiences of the authorwith particular reference to communicating insensitive and high-profile investigations.

Communication and geology

Communication may be considered the process bywhich geological information is conveyed (by ageologist) to another person, by means of verbaland non-verbal methods. This may also be con-sidered as the sharing or exchange of geologicalknowledge. From the geologist’s perspective, geo-logical information is required to make the correctdecision or judgement about ‘the ground’, or toassess the consequences and risks associated with aparticular geohazard. The recipient requires theinformation to make decisions that could, forexample, influence engineering design, determinethe location of structures, roads and utilities, orcould help to locate mineral resources, to find agrave, or to help save lives. Communication there-fore consists of both the giving and receivingof information.

From: LIVERMAN, D. G. E., PEREIRA, C. P. G. & MARKER, B. (eds) Communicating EnvironmentalGeoscience. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 305, 107–121.DOI: 10.1144/SP305.11 0305-8719/08/$15.00 # The Geological Society of London 2008.

Professional geologists use technical languageand this is as necessary as vocabulary when learninganother language (Fookes 1997). Without technicallanguage geology would not exist as a professionand scientific discipline. It is the responsibility ofthe geologist to judge the correct tone and technicalcontent, and to make sure that jargon (unnecessaryand extraneous use of technical terms) is not usedwhen communicating with others. Levels of com-munication vary depending upon the education ofthe recipients; with specialists the communicationscan be highly technical, but with schoolchildrenthey must be in plain language. In mixed audiencesusing the correct level of technical content isdifficult and needs to be considered carefullybefore engagement takes place.

Existing information and guidelines

There are relatively few reports available forgeologists aimed specifically at communication.Publications that deal with communicationsusually refer to a variety of geological topics;for example, publications on geohazards andgeological information include that by Forster &Freeborough (2006). Also, numerous websitesnow provide information on a range of geohazards(e.g. see the websites for the US GeologicalSurvey, the Geological Society of London and theUS Federal Emergency Management Agency).The material within these websites is useful forinformation on geohazards (landslides, mining,floods, tsunami, volcanoes and earthquakes).

Lyme Regis, on the south coast of England, andVentnor, on the Isle of Wight, are areas with ahigh potential for landslides and have frequentlyexperienced active landsliding. This has made thelocal councils aware of the need to communicateeffectively with the public (including leaflets advis-ing householders and the public) about the landslidehazards and what was being done to investigate andmitigate the effects of landslides (Cole & Davies2002; Davis & Cole 2002; McInnes 2004).

In Britain, the shrinkage and swelling of claysduring prolonged hot summer months frequentlycauses structural damage. Since the drought of1976, the Institution of Civil Engineers and theBuilding Research Establishment have been proac-tive in raising awareness of the possibility forrepairs that may be required as a result of subsi-dence damage (Freeman et al. 1994). The reportby Freeman et al. (1994) provided information onthe causes of subsidence, the distribution ofclays susceptible to shrink–swell, what typesof investigations to carry out and advice on howto make insurance claims. The increasing incidenceof drought since 1976 and the greater awarenessof the possibility of making claims for repairs

to houses damaged by subsidence created aneed for more information about the hazard ofshrinkable clay.

In Britain, the communication of landslide andsubsidence hazards has been facilitated by the pro-duction of planning policy guidance, includingpublications by the Department of the Environment(1990, 1996), Department of Trade and Industry(1996, produced by the Office of the DeputyPrime Minister) and Department of the Environ-ment, Transport and the Regions (2000). Theseguidelines provide information on the possiblegeological causes of potentially unstable land sothat this may be considered during the early stagesof the planning, redevelopment or rehabilitationof land.

The Coal Authority provides coal mine searchservices to inform home owners and developers ofthe potential mining hazards associated with thelegacy of past coal mining and brine pumping inBritain (Law Society 1994). Published informationon mining and other geohazards in Britain hasbeen provided by, for example, GeomorphologicalServices Ltd (1987), Arup Geotechnics (1992) andApplied Geology Limited (1993). Similar informationpublished in the USA includes work by Muton &Shimabukuro (1974), Marts et al. (1978), Nuhferet al. (1993), Creath (1996), Noe et al. (1997), Hol-combe et al. (2003) and Mileti et al. (2004).

Communication in other professions

Communication is recognized as being importantin professions other than geology. In the medicalprofession, for instance, effective communicationis crucial between doctors and their patients.Medical jargon is rarely used, and if it is, it isexplained. Professional guidance notes to helpdoctors communicate effectively have been pro-duced; these include publications by Dicksonet al. (1989), Audit Commission (1993), Onget al. (1995), Hind (1997), Royal College of Phys-icians of London (1997), Williams (1997), theNHS Confederation (1997) and the BritishMedical Association (1998). Although much ofthe information contained in these papers andreports is aimed, obviously, at the medicalprofession and at the doctor–patient relationship,there are some generic concepts that can potentiallybe applied to the geological professional. Themedical profession has recognized the problemsthat arise when communication fails, betweenstaff, different departments, and doctors andpatients. These observations are similar to those inengineering geology, mining, geoforensics and geo-hazards investigations, especially where large teamsare involved, with different personalities fromdifferent technical, social and cultural backgrounds.

L. J. DONNELLY108

Perhaps the solutions provided to the medicalprofession have application to the geosciences?

Types of communication

All geologists should be competent in both oraland written communication. Geologists need tocommunicate with all age groups, a wide range ofother professions and across cultures. Competencein communication is therefore a critical part ofgeologists’ training and capabilities. There are twomain ways by which geologists conventionallycommunicate: (1) spoken (conferences, workshops,seminars, lectures and meetings); (2) written(reports, memoirs, maps, scientific papers, technicalnotes, letters, e-mail and computer data).

Spoken communication relies on interpersonalskills and the ability to convey information effec-tively, confidently and consistently (often, con-sciously or subconsciously relying on bodylanguage). These skills are important when geol-ogists are providing information on an impendinggeohazard. Written communications, such as publi-cations, reports and maps, allow geologists to com-municate with each other, but are not necessarilythe most effective form of communication whengeological information needs to be conveyed toanother (non-geological) professional or membersof the pubic, who may not necessarily be familiarwith complex geological language.

Communication skills

Communication may be learnt by training sothat geologists can become better communicators;training and the continuation of professionaldevelopment (CPD) may provide the necessaryopportunity. The type of communication trainingneeds to be planned and considered with respect tothe geologist’s background and professional role asa geologist (e.g. a forensic geologist v. a mininggeologist v. an engineering geologist). Trainingcourses therefore need to be properly designed and‘fit-for-purpose’ to facilitate the requirements ofthe geologist (or group of geologists).

Geologists also communicate not just to conveyinformation but to create and develop positiveinter-professional relationships. Communicationinvolves the interaction of individuals. It may beentered into voluntarily or non-voluntarily andsometimes involves emotive issues. Whereas manygeological investigations rely on technical sophisti-cation, innovation and fundamental science, inter-personal communication is the means by whichgeologists communicate their findings. Thereare many ways geologists may develop good inter-personal relationships, but there are very few guide-lines or publications on how this may be achieved.

Circumstances will vary, but, in general, goodrelationships rely on some well-accepted character-istics (e.g. good manners, respect, laughing, compli-ments, friendliness and especially empathy,amongst many others). The good communicatormust also be a good listener, using silence, reflect-ing, paraphrasing and non-verbal behaviour.

Geologists and communication with

other professionals

Successful communication between fellowgeologists is important to ensure that clients andother professionals do not receive conflicting,confusing or contradictory information. In civilengineering, for example, a structural engineermay be offered different advice from a geotechnicalengineer or an engineering geologist, which isprobably frustrating for the structural engineer.This situation may have arisen because it reflectsthe different training for the two disciplines; itmay also be traced to the fact that many engineeringgeological decisions are based on judgement andinterpretation. A co-ordinated and integral approachis therefore required in such circumstances for theoutcome to be successful.

Geology is crucial to the civil engineer, whorequires factual geological information on theground in which he is working, the engineeringcharacterization of the ground conditions, and infor-mation on groundwater and hydrogeology. The bestservices an engineering geologist can provide to acivil engineer are to get the geological character-istics of the site right (Fookes 1997). Once thegeology is understood, this needs to be thenclearly communicated to the engineer who willuse the information to help make decisions.

Civil engineers, although technical subjectmatter experts, may not necessarily be familiarwith the complex technical terminology used byengineering geologists. Too much geologicalterminology may potentially cause the engineer tobecome frustrated. Engineering geologists havethe ability to make sound, rational decisions,based on partial and imperfect knowledge.Engineering geologists must reply on judgementand therefore this introduces a degree of uncer-tainty, as a result of ‘gaps-in-knowledge’. Thesejudgements are based on the geologists’ training,observation and experience, and communicationskills. Engineering geologists must therefore makeaccurate judgements and communicate the infor-mation to clients and engineers. Visual aids suchas maps, cross-sections, photographs, drawingsand ‘back-of-an-envelope’ sketches are often thesolution during informal communications betweenthe geologist and the engineer (Fig. 1).

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 109

Forensic geologists, police officers and policesearch advisors who search the ground for murdervictims’ graves (Donnelly 2000a, b; Fenning &Donnelly 2004), may also find communicationchallenging (Fig. 2). This work involves teams ofmultidisciplinary experts such as geologists, anthro-pologists, botanists, victim recovery dog handlers,remote sensing aerial assets, behavioural profilers,clinical psychologists and military personnel.These searches are usually co-ordinated andmanaged by a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO).A conceptual geological model of the ground maybe developed by the geologist to provide informationabout the target’s age, size, geometry, expected

depth of burial, time and duration of burial, andphysical, chemical, hydrogeological and geotechni-cal variations compared with the surroundingground. This information may then be used to deter-mine the correct search strategy, the appropriatechoice of instrumentation, and the optimummethod of deployment. To successfully carry outsuch an operation, the main challenges are notnecessarily technical but communication. The geol-ogist conveys all of the above technical informationto the SIO and other experts. The police officer mayhave already a team of multidisciplinary technicalspecialists. How does the geologist fit into thissystem? At what stage does the geologist approach

Fig. 1. Communication with a range of other professionals and technical specialists. Top left, geologists discussvolcanic hazards during the inspection of lava flows, in the Valle del Bove, October 1992 eruption of Mt Etna, Sicily.Top right, discussions with mining engineers, surveyors and strata control experts at the adit entrance to a small minein Kashmiri Pakistan in the Karakoram Himalayas. Bottom left, mining geologists, mining engineers and geologistsfrom the Pakistan Geological Survey inspect maps during an exploration survey at high altitude in a remote part of theKarakoram–Himalayas. Bottom right, engineering geologists investigate a 4 m high, 4 km long, fault scarp inthe South Wales Coalfield, discussing mining subsidence and fault reactivation mechanisms.

L. J. DONNELLY110

the crime scene, to reduce the risks of any crosscontamination? How can the geologist begin tounderstand crime scene management and crimescene investigation, and the strict police protocolsinvolved? The SIO, already possibly overloadedwith a range of specialists, now finds that he orshe has to deal with yet another specialist, the geol-ogist (Fig. 3). This may potentially be problematic ifthe process is not carefully planned and communi-cated (Donnelly 2003, Harrison & Donnelly 2008).

There is clearly still the need to improvecommunication between geologists and otherprofessionals. It is essential that good channelsof clear communication are developed and

maintained. The interface with geologists andother professionals may often take place on aone-to-one personal basis. For communication tobe effective both the geologist and the other pro-fessional must be able and willing to give andreceive information.

Geologists and communication in a

multicultural world

Geologists, like other professionals, usually discussand debate their findings, and consideration mustbe given to whether members of the public

Fig. 2. Top, geologists and police officers inspecting the ground in the Midlands, following the discovery of humanbones (later found to be a pauper grave). Bottom, geologists and police officers search the ground.

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 111

(Anonymous 2002), or the client, should be part ofthose discussions. Often the recipient of geologicalinformation requires only a decision, and may notnecessarily be concerned about the details of howthat decision was determined. During the monitor-ing of a recent volcanic eruption, for example,some members of the public were present duringscientists’ debrief, discussions and debate. It wasoriginally envisaged that this would strengthenand improve relationships between scientists andthe public. However, it had the opposite effect,because the public considered the scientists’debates and discussions to represent uncertaintyand inconsistency, which undermined some of thepublic’s confidence. The communication of geo-logical information to the public may be influencedby the following: (1) language barriers; (2) humaninfluences, such as disinclination to ask (possiblybecause of embarrassment), anxiety, anger, forget-fulness, preconceptions, pride and age differences;(3) assumptions (‘a little knowledge may bedangerous’).

Each community, society and group of peoplehas its own particular view of the natural environ-ment and geohazards, although they may be sub-jected to the same events (Fig. 4). It is this viewthat needs to be very carefully considered beforeengaging with a community to discuss geohazards,consequences and risks. This will determine thetype of language to use (technical or non-technical)and the manner in which to conduct the communi-cation. Individual perception and public responseis based on geohazards history, traditions, culture,religion, emotion, folklore, gossip, superstition,other non-scientific influences, knowledge aboutthe risk, and experience. Individual judgement isbased on previous personal experience of thegeohazard rather than an objective, collectiveassessment of all the probabilities and conse-quences (Peltu 1991).

Effective communication is central, and this isparticularly important when members of thepublic are being provided with information con-cerning potentially catastrophic geohazards.

Fig. 3. The introduction of a forensic geologist to a complex, multi-disciplinary police search team must be carefullyco-ordinated and properly managed. The geologist must be able to effectively communicate with the other subjectmatter experts, be aware of his/her limitations and understand the role and capabilities of the other experts(modified after Donnelly 2000b, in Harrison & Donnelly 2008).

L. J. DONNELLY112

Geologists who work in multicultural and multira-cial societies should have an appreciation andunderstanding of the different types and levels ofcommunication that may be required with thepublic and non-specialists. Particular attentionshould be paid to local customs, which it may beimportant to respect. Appropriate preparation andadequate provision of language interpreters and

bilingual translators may be required to improvecross-cultural communication.

Communication is an interpersonal social skill,not a technical one, and as such requires an appre-ciation of the emotional dimension of the situationboth before communicating and as a result of itsimpact. For communication to be effective the geo-logist must identify and understand the needs of the

Fig. 4. The communication of geological information to the public, multicultural and multiracial societies. Top left,evacuation camps established in Montserrat, during the eruption of the Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat. Top right,local residents at a Montserrat evacuation camp displaced by volcanic hazards. Middle left, farmers in Singrauli, India,affected by mining hazards associated with large scale open cast and under ground coal mining operations. Middleright, terraced houses in Easington, County Durham, affected by mining subsidence. Bottom left and bottom right,children, women and unskilled men who scavenge coal from waste tips in Antioquia, Colombian Andes. Thesecommunities and environments, where geological and mining hazards have negatively affected lives require the clearand careful communication of geological information to the public and interpersonal skills.

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 113

target audience. This includes an assessment oftheir state of knowledge, any gaps-in-knowledge,their appreciation of basic science, their language,cultural values, age profiles, and domestic, politicaland language constraints. Careful considerationmust be given to the background of the particularaudience. In any situation, effective communi-cation, in the opinion of the author, may beachieved by face-to-face meetings to engagedirectly with the recipients, audiences and/orother professionals. Audiences of mixed ages,race, religions and scientific background are likelyto have different understandings of geology andgeohazards. In these circumstances, good visualaids facilitate effective communication (this mayinclude, for instance, maps, photographs, anima-tions and video footage).

Once the target audience has been engaged, theinformation may then be transferred by verbal,written, electronic or visual means. When thepublic, clients and professionals have been giveninformation on geohazards they will then need tobe informed on potential strategies on how tomitigate or avoid the hazard (Fig. 5).

Feedback is a critical part of communication.Many people may react adversely to an authoritarianstance and need to feel they are ‘part of the process’,and/or ‘in control’. Continuity is important; asingle meeting may not be sufficient, as geohazardsdo not simply cease. There is likely to be the needfor a programme of regular meetings, and it isimportant that the same information, advice andrecommendations are given in a calm, clear, non-ambiguous and consistent manner, making surethat, whenever possible, technical language isavoided or minimized (or if used, then explained).

Good communication is important during themonitoring and prediction of volcanic eruptions.There are several examples of successes and fail-ures. For example, Nevado del Ruiz volcano islocated in the Andean Cordillera of Colombia,approximately 100 km NW of Colombia’s capitalcity, Sante Fe De Bogota. On 13 November1985, a Plinian eruption generated a series of pyr-oclastic flows, which interacted with the snow andice that formed the summit ice cap. The rapidtransfer of heat from the eruption, combined withthe seismic shaking, generated lahars (mud flows)and avalanches of saturated snow, ice, felledtrees and rock debris. These flowed along drainagechannels and within 4 h had travelled over 105 km,descending 5100 m, leaving a wake of catastrophicdestruction and obliterating everything in theirpath. The town of Armero was buried beneath ablanket of mud. Approximately 24 740 peoplewere killed or missing, 4420 injured and 5092made homeless (Fig. 6).

Geohazard investigations were undertaken atNevado del Ruiz, prior to the 1985 eruptions.Previous pyroclastic flow deposits and lahars weremapped and their extent was known, accuratereports of historical events were recorded and,following a period of monitoring the volcano,advice was made available from Colombian andinternational scientists who participated in theinvestigations. In the months prior to the eruption,communications were established between geolo-gists and the government. The geologists attemptedto explain the significance of the observed precur-sory activity, which included low-intensity earth-quake swarms, a steam (phreatic) eruption,explosions, ash-fall deposits and small laharswithin 30 km of the summit. Geological hazardmaps were produced over a month before the fatalevent. The Colombian officials issued alerts toprepare for mudflows, but unfortunately thesereports were not properly disseminated. Pyroclasticflows and surges were generated, but it was notannounced that these events were significant. Infor-mation on volcanic hazards was met with scepti-cism by the local authorities and the population.An evacuation of Armero was considered to beunnecessary by the authorities (this may also havebeen influenced by the fact that it was night withheavy rainfall). The violent lahars came in twosurges, the first cold, the second hot, and theseengulfed Armero for at least 2 h. The catastropheat Nevado del Ruiz and Armero was exacerbatedby failures in communications, cumulative humanerror, misjudgement, indecision and bureaucracy(Williams 1990a, b).

Montserrat is a British dependent island locatedin the West Indies. The Soufriere Hills Volcano,situated in the southern part of this island, hasbeen in a state of almost continuous volcanicactivity for the past 13 years, since 1995, afterbeing dormant for about 400 years (Druitt &Kokelaar 2002). The Montserrat Volcano Observa-tory (MVO) was established soon after the occur-rence of phreatic eruptions on 12 July 1995. Theeruption of the Soufriere Hills Volcano was anevent for which the local population wascompletely unprepared.

Pyroclastic surges and lahars have radiated fromthe volcano, travelling along river gullies towardsthe sea and engulfing numerous villages. This hasresulted in the loss of use of a large part of theisland, including the airport, main jetty and capitaltown, Plymouth (a new airport and jetty have nowbeen built; Plymouth has been evacuated of all its resi-dents and is currently buried beneath volcanic depos-its), and there were some fatalities (Donnelly 2007).

During the early stages of the eruption some ofthe islanders and scientists were conscious of

L. J. DONNELLY114

Fig. 5. Conceptual flow chart to illustrate the main phases of communication during a geohazard investigation.

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 115

historical volcanic eruptions on neighbouringCaribbean islands. For instance, in 1909, the erup-tion of Mount Pelee on Martinique generated pyro-clastic flows that killed at least 29 000 people. Morerecently, in 1976–1977, approximately 70 000people on Guadeloupe were evacuated following arelatively small steam eruption on La SoufriereVolcano that lasted about 9 months. However, nomajor eruption followed and the evacuation wasconsidered to have been unnecessary by many ofthe local people. Unfortunately, there was a break-down in communications between the geologists,government and the public; no lives were lost butthere was a significant negative economic impacton businesses and farms (Robertson 1995).

The move towards the evacuation of much of thepopulation of Montserrat resulted in a situationwhere the communication of geohazards to thegovernment and public was very important. In theearly stage of the eruption on Montserrat differenttypes of communications were established withthe public. These included the daily issuing ofstatements via the media (TV and radio), regularmeetings with community representatives and the

issuing of newsletters (Fig. 7). During the earlystages of the eruption the author experienced thebenefits of personal engagement with the local com-munity (Fig. 4). This supported more formalvolcanic hazards announcements provided by theMVO, sometimes via the media and Governmentof Montserrat. An appreciation of interpersonaland social skills was necessary for creating anenvironment of trust within which a dialoguecould be established to convey the necessary mess-ages of the nature of volcanic eruptions and theirimplications for those threatened by them. Thisapproach demonstrated the need for social andinterpersonal skills as well as technical and scienti-fic expertise, for the effective monitoring andcommunication of volcanic hazards.

During the eruptions of Mount Pinatubo, in thePhilipines, in 1990 (where approximately 250,000people were evacuated) and Rabaul in Paupa NewGuinea in 1994, good communications betweengeologists, the authorities, and the population resultedin a positive response from the people affected bythese volcanic eruptions. This is likely to havesaved many thousands of lives (McGuire 1998).

Fig. 6. Top left, the town of Manizales, Colombia, situated in the shadow of Nevado del Ruiz Volcano. Top right, viewof the upper Lagunillas River valley, close the summit of Nevado del Ruiz. Bottom left, scoria, ash-rich pyroclastic flowdeposits exposed on the upper reaches of Nevado del Ruiz. Bottom right, horizontally stratified ash, pyroclastic flow,pumiceous and mudflow (lahar) deposits on the walls of the Lagunillas River valley, exposed by erosion during the 1985lahars that buried the town of Armero. Approximately 24 740 people were killed or missing, 4420 injured and 5092 madehomeless. This was attributable, at least in part, to breakdown in communications between scientists and officials.

L. J. DONNELLY116

Fig. 7. Examples of leaflets and newsletters produced by the Government of Montserrat to help with thecommunication of information on volcanic hazards to the public. Reproduced by kind permission from the Governmentof Montserrat.

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 117

Geologists and communication with

the media

Geologists sometimes have to communicate withthe media (Fig. 8). Geologists are not conventionallytrained to deal with journalists and so their responsesshould be carefully considered, so that the intendedmessage is put across clearly, factually and withoutsensationalism (however, post-interview editingcan change this). Failure to communicate thegeologists’ messages accurately may result in themedia (and therefore the public) being given anerroneous estimation of a geohazard or misleading

information about a sensitive police investigation.If available, press officers or public relationsspecialists should be consulted prior to any inter-action with the media, to obtain appropriateadvice and to be made aware of any broaderissues (Nield 2008).

Before geologists accept invitations by themedia they should make sure they understandwhether the interview may be recorded or live.Recorded interviews may give the opportunity torehearse or review an interview before it is broad-cast or reported (although this is not always thecase). Live interviews do not give the opportunity

Fig. 8. Communication with the media. Top left, during the monitoring of the Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat, forthe production of an international TV documentary. Top right, and bottom left, journalists photograph a geologistworking at a crime scene. Bottom right, local TV news crew interviewing a geologist describing mining hazards andtheir impact on the environment.

L. J. DONNELLY118

for rehearsal prior to broadcasting or for thecorrection of mistakes. It is therefore essential thatthe geologist prepares for the interview, under-stands something about the usual programme,including its aims, objectives and target audience.This will allow answers to be prepared beforehandin the context of the interview. Geologists need todecide before the interview takes place exactlywhat the key points will be that they are trying toget across in the message. About three or fourmain points should be identified.

During interviews with the media and the public,geologists should come across as being confidentand positive. The information given should besimple, clear and non-contentious, and ambiguityshould be avoided. Jargon should not be used, butif geological and other scientific terms are used,then these should be explained in non-technicalterms. During live interviews any mistakes mademust be corrected during the interview. Whenbeing interviewed on television or for the pro-duction of a documentary, personal image, appear-ance, body language, tone of voice, facialexpressions and posture are just as important asthe verbal messages.

Speaking with the media (and public) givesgeologists the opportunity to raise the profile ofgeology. During public speaking, it is alwaysadvisable to match the talk to the interests of theaudience. The communication of geological infor-mation to the public, and the public promotion ofscience, can be entertaining and enjoyable. Maga-zine articles, newspapers, lectures and TV docu-mentaries regularly focus on geology and inparticular geological hazards. This enhances thepublic understanding of geology. What is more,geology as a profession depends on the next gener-ation and constant flow of ‘youngsters’, andtherefore professional geologists perhaps have aduty to participate in the public communication ofgeology (Donnelly 2002a). Working in such aninteresting profession, it is not too difficult to sup-plement such talks and presentations with enthu-siasm and impressive images of geohazards;always guaranteed to captivate audiences and themedia. On occasions, some of these presentationshave inspired tomorrow’s generation of geologists.Further information on communicating with themedia has been published by, for example, Whiteet al. (1993) and the Royal Society (2000).

Summary

Communication of geological information isusually preceded by scientific (geological) investi-gations, the results of which are then conveyed bythe geologist to the recipient. In many respects thecommunication of technically complex geological

information is usually more challenging that thegeological investigation itself. This is made moredifficult where the socio-cultural background andlanguage are markedly different from that of thecommunicator. The failure to effectively communi-cate geological information may blight land or havecatastrophic consequences.

The geologist must make sure that the infor-mation is effectively and accurately communicated.Communication usually takes place by spoken orwritten means. A geologist relies on interpersonalskills, training and expertise to overcome anypotential obstacles that may hinder good communi-cation. Good geologists are not necessarily goodnatural communicators. The failure to effectiveand accurately communicate geological infor-mation, no matter how accurate and reliable theresults of a geological investigation, may reducethe reliability of the information being provided.

Communication is a social skill, not a technicalone, for the impersonal transfer of data andinformation. The most effective method of com-munication is the use of clear, simple, unambigu-ous, non-technical language. Visual material canfacilitate effective communication, especially to anon-technical audience and other professionalswith little or no knowledge of geology. The transferof knowledge, to be wholly effective, needs to bedone with confidence and consistency. The goodcommunicator must also be a good listener, usingsilence, reflecting, paraphrasing and non-verbalbehaviour. If possible, there should be feedbackfrom the targeted audience (or individual).

During the monitoring and prediction of geoha-zards (e.g. volcanic activity), one of the importantchallenges is to understand the popular, public per-ception of the hazards and threat. The real chal-lenges are to communicate the likelihood of aneruption and to call for an evacuation; this is oftena very difficult decision, usually much more diffi-cult that the science itself.

The accurate communication of informationrelating to geohazards by geologists to the publicis critically important. Throughout history thereare many examples where geologists got thescience and communication right, got the scienceright but the communication wrong, or got boththe science and communication wrong.

When working with the police, the forensicgeologist must be aware of the limitations of hisor her experiences and be confident to communicatewith a multidisciplinary team of forensic investi-gators and police officers.

Communication with the media (and public)gives geologists the opportunity to raise theprofile of geology. Media training and awarenessis recommended before engaging with the media.Responses need to be carefully considered, so that

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 119

the intended message is put across clearly and, fac-tually, without sensationalism. Recorded interviewsmay give the opportunity to rehearse or review aninterview before it is broadcast or reported. Liveinterviews do not give the opportunity for rehearsalprior to broadcasting and for the correction of mis-takes. Information should be simple and non-contentious, and ambiguous jargon should not beused, but if geological and other scientific termsare used, then these should be explained inlayman’s terms. When addressing the public andmedia, personal image, appearance, body language,tone of voice, facial expressions, persona andposture are just as important as the verbal messages.

This paper has relied heavily on the author’sprofessional experiences during the monitoringof volcanic hazards, mining hazards, exploration,geotechnical investigations and working with thepolice in many parts of the world. This paperhas highlighted some key issues and has drawnattention to the importance of communicationbetween geologists, and with other specialists, thepublic and the media. These experiences suggestthat communication should be more formallytaught, perhaps at undergraduate level withadvanced (CPD) communication courses availableto practising, professional geologists. It is through-out the geologist’s career, however, and fromexperiences that the real skills of communicationare tested and developed.

The author would like to acknowledge the support andassistance provided by the British Geological Survey,International Mining Consultants, Halcrow Group Ltd,Mr James White (Government of Montserrat) andDr Richard Robertson (The Seismic Research Centre, TheUniversity of West Indies, Trinidad and MontserratVolcano Observatory). The views expressed in this paperare those of the author and not necessarily the views of anyof the organizations that have been mentioned in this paper.

References

ANONYMOUS 2002. Dialogue with the Public: PracticalGuidelines. Research Councils UK. Developed forthe Research Councils UK and the Office of Scienceand Technology by People Science & Policy Ltd &Taylor Nelson Sofres, London.

APPLIED GEOLOGY LIMITED 1993. Review of InstabilityDue to Natural Underground Cavities in GreatBritain. Summary Report. Applied Geology Ltd,Royal Leamington Spa.

ARUP GEOTECHNICS 1992. Review of Mining Instabilityin Great Britain. Summary Report. Department ofEnvironment, London.

AUDIT COMMISSION 1993. What Seems to be the Matter:Communication between Hospitals and Patients?HMSO, London.

BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 1998. CommunicatingSkills and Continuing Professional Development.

Board of Medical Education, British MedicalAssociation, London.

COLE, K. & DAVIS, G. M. 2002. Landslide warningand emergency planning systems in West Dorset.England. In: MCINNES, R. & JAKEWAYS, J. (eds)Slope Instability—Planning and Management.Thomas Telford, London, 463–470.

CREATH, W. B. 1996. Home Buyers’ Guide to GeologicHazards. American Institute of Professional Geol-ogists, Arvada, CO.

DAVIS, G. M. & COLE, K. 2002. Working with thecommunity—public liaison in instability managementat Lyme Regis, Dorset, England. In: MCINNES, R. &JAKEWAYS, J. (eds) Slope Instability—Planning andManagement. Thomas Telford, London, 695–700.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1990. PlanningPolicy Guidance Note 14: Development on UnstableLand. HMSO, London.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1996. PlanningPolicy Guidance Note 14: Development on UnstableLand. Annex 1: Landslides and Planning. HMSO,London.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT

AND THE REGIONS 2000. Planning Policy GuidanceNote 14: Development on Unstable Land. Annex 2:Subsidence and Planning. DETR, London.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY 1996. GoingPublic, an Introduction to Communicating Science,Engineering and Technology. Department of Tradeand Industry, London.

DICKSON, D. A., HARGIE, O. & MORROW, N. C. 1989.Communication Skills Training for HealthProfessionals. An Instructors’ Handbook. Chapman& Hall, London.

DONNELLY, L. J. 2002a. Finding the silent witness. Howforensic geology helps solve crimes. All-Party Parlia-mentary Group for Earth Science. Geoscientist, 12,16–17, 24.

DONNELLY, L. J. 2002b. Finding the silent witness. In:DONNELLY, L. J. (ed.) Record of presentation on For-ensic Geology and The Moors Murders to the House ofCommons, Westminster Palace, on 12th March 2002,with contributions from J. R. Hunter and B. Simpson.British Geological Survey & International MiningConsultants.

DONNELLY, L. J. 2003. The applications of forensicgeology to help the police solve crimes. EuropeanGeologist–Journal of the European Federation ofGeologists, 16, 8–12.

DONNELLY, L. J. 2007. Engineering geology of land-slides on the volcanic island of Montserrat, WestIndies. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology &Hydrogeology, 40(3), 267–292.

DRUITT, T. H. & KOKELAAR, B. P. (eds) 2002. TheEruption of the Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat,from 1995 to 1999. Geological Society, London,Memoirs, 21(1), 1–43.

FENNING, P. J. & DONNELLY, L. J. 2004. Geophysicaltechniques for forensic investigations. In: PYE, K. &CROFT, D. J. (eds) Forensic Geoscience. Principles,Techniques and Applications. Geological Society,London, Special Publications 232, 11–20.

FOOKES, P. G. 1997. The First Glossop Lecture. QuarterlyJournal of Engineering Geology, 30, 293–424.

L. J. DONNELLY120

FORSTER, A. & FREEBOROUGH, K. 2006. A Guide to theCommunication of Geohazards Information to thePublic. British Geological Survey, Urban Geoscienceand Geohazards Programme, IR/06/0009.

FREEMAN, T. J., LITTLEJOHN, G. S. & DRISCOLL,R. M. C. 1994. Has Your House Got Cracks? AGuide to Subsidence and Heave of Buildings onClay. Institution of Civil Engineers and the BuildingResearch Establishment, London.

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL SERVICES LTD 1987. Review ofResearch into Landsliding in Great Britain. Depart-ment of the Environment Open File Reports, ReportNo. 14.

HARRISON, M. & DONNELLY, L. J. 2008. Locatingconcealed homicide victims; developing the role ofGeoforensics. In: RITZ, K., DAWSON, L. &MILLER, D. (eds) Criminal and Environmental SoilForensics. Soil Forensics International, EdinburghConference Centre, 30 October–1 November 2008,Springer (in press).

HIND, C. 1997. Communication Skills in Medicine, BritishMedical Journal, London.

HOLCOMBE, E. A., ELLIS, D., TOOBY, J. & ANDERSON,M. G. 2003. Public Awareness Documentation toImprove Slope Stability Conditions. Poverty ReductionFund, St Lucia, MoSSaiC Management Report, 3.

Law Society 1994. Coal Mining Searches. Law Society’sGuidance Notes and Directory. The Law Society’sStationery Society Limited, London.

MARTS, M. E., HODGE, D. C., SHARP, V. L., SHERIDAN,F. E., MACGREGOR, J. M. & CULLEN, J. M. 1978.Social Implications of Volcano Hazard: Case Studiesin the Washington Cascades and Hawaii. Departmentof Geography, University of Washington, Seattle.

MCGUIRE, W. J. 1998. Volcanic hazards and their mitiga-tion. In: MAUND, J. G. & EDDLESTON, M. (eds)Geohazards in Engineering Geology. GeologicalSociety, London, Special Publications, 15, 79–95.

MCINNES, R. 2004. Instability management from policyto practice. In: GLADE, T., ANDERSON, M. &CROZIER, M. J. (eds) Landslide and Risk. Wiley,Chichester, 401–428.

MILETI, D., NATHE, S., GORI, P., GREENE, M. &LEMERSAL, E. 2004. Public Hazards Communicationand Education: The State of the Art. Update of Nathe,S., Gori, P., Greene, M., Lemersal, E. & Mileti, D.1999. Public Education for Earthquake Hazards.Natural Hazards Informer, 2. Natural HazardsResearch and Applications Information Centre, Insti-tute of Behavioural Science, University of Coloradoat Boulder.

MUTON, B. J. & SHIMABUKURO, S. 1974. Human adjust-ment to volcanic hazards in Puna District, Hawaii. In:WHITE, G. F. (ed) Natural Hazards: Local, Nationaland Global. Oxford University Press, New York,151–159.

NHS CONFEDERATION 1997. Better Guide. Better Com-munications for the NHS Trusts. NHS Confederation,Birmingham.

NIELD, T. 2008. Altered priorities ahead; or how todevelop fruitful relationships with the media. In:LIVERMAN, D., PEREIRA, C. P. G. & MARKER, B.(eds) Communicating Environment Geoscience. Geo-logical Society, London, Special Publications, 305,5–10.

NOE, D. C., JOCHIM, C. L. & ROGERS, W. P. 1997. AGuide to Swelling Soils for Colorado Homebuyersand Homeowners. Colorado Geological Survey,Special Publication, 43.

NUHFER, E. B., PROCTOR, R. J. & MOSER, P. H.1993. The Citizen’s Guide to Geologic Hazards.American Institute of Professional Geologists,Arvada, CO.

ONG, L. M., DEHAES, J. & LAMMES, F. B. 1995.Doctor–patient communication; a review of theliterature. Social Science and Medicine, 40,903–918.

PELTU, M. 1991. Risk perception in the real world. NewScientist, 17, August, p. 4.

ROBERTSON, R. E. A. 1995. An assessment of the riskfrom future eruption on the Soufriere Volcano ofSt. Vincent, West Indies. Natural Hazards, 11,163–191.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON 1997.Improving Communication between Doctors andPatients. RCP, London.

ROYAL SOCIETY 2000. Scientists and the Media: Guide-lines for Scientists Working with the Media and Com-ments on a Press Code of Practice. Royal Society,London.

WHITE, S., EVANS, P., MIHILL, C. & TYSOE, M. 1993.Hitting the Headlines, a practical guide to themedia. British Psychological Society, Leicester.

WILLIAMS, D. 1997. Communications Skills in Practice:A General Guide for Health Professionals. JessicaKingsley, London.

WILLIAMS, S. N. (ed.) 1990a. Nevado del Ruiz Volcano,Colombia, I. Journal of Volcanology and GeothermalResearch, Special Issue, 41, 379 pp.

WILLIAMS, S. N. (ed.) 1990b. Nevado del Ruiz Volcano,Colombia, II. Journal of Volcanology and GeothermalResearch, Special Issue, 42, 224 pp.

COMMUNICATION IN GEOLOGY 121