green chemistry and strategic science communication

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Strategic Science Communication: Loving Green Chemistry

is Not Enough

John C. BesleyMichigan State University

Strategy

Is science literacy the solution to science’s ‘problems’?

Thinking about goals and objectives

Green chemistry communication

1

2

3

3

What do people know about science?

Views are my own and not necessarily those the National

Science Foundation or the National Science Board

4


5


U.S. still better shape than most countries

6

An biennial opportunity

to make fun of ‘others’

Experts from every area want more issue specific literacy

8

Frankieleon via flickr creative commons

bradleypjohnson via flickr creative commons

Chris Potter via flickr creative commons

Also true that nobody knows

much about much

Plumbing?

Car repairs?

Taxes?

9

What it means:• Meta-analysis suggests a mall (.08)

relationship between knowledge and attitudes• Varies a little bit by issue

(e.g., smaller relationship for GM food)

Does science knowledge lead to science support?

Also lots of ‘information provision’

experiments

11

Released, October 2016

12

1945

Key lesson: You can’t ‘teach someone’ to like you?

We’ve known this for a long time …

13

But there’s a war on science? (i.e., Do people really dislike us?)

Perceived benefits of science?

And … people have more confidence in scientists

than anyone else

Confidence science?

But there’s a catch …You’re seen

as competent but cold

17

What does this have to do with strategic science communication?

18

Increase Knowledge

Communicative Act Policy Preferences or Behavior

Increase Excitement

Communication Objectives …

Ultimate Goals …Tactics …

STRAGEGIC COMMUNICATION is about picking tactics that help us achieve communication objectives that help us achieve our real goals

(Note that ‘literacy’ is an objective, not a goal)

19

Most training focuses on knowledge/excitement too

20

And most scientists put knowledge at their top of their

training priority list

21

Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …

Type of society

Inform/Educate

Interest/Excite

Defendscience

Show caring

Show openness

Frame issue

Show values

Hear others

Show expert

Chemistry 6.17 5.78 5.8 5.66 5.52 5.30 5.30 5.05 4.76Biochemistry 6.09 5.94 5.83 5.71 5.56 5.29 5.27 5.11 4.65General 6.20 5.92 5.79 5.70 5.47 5.30 5.27 5.12 4.77Microbiology 6.09 5.94 5.83 5.71 5.56 5.29 5.27 5.11 4.65Geophysical 6.21 5.86 5.60 5.49 5.34 5.25 5.07 4.84 4.72Geological 6.22 5.92 5.96 5.62 5.44 5.18 5.14 4.92 4.95Ecological 6.18 5.88 5.55 5.49 5.23 5.33 5.06 4.82 4.49

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

Typical SE is between .05 and .08

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Inform, defend, and excite are most common

objectives for scientists

Results of a 2015/2016 survey of ~2,500 scientists across 7 scientific societies

22

Increase Knowledge


Increase Excitement



Knowledge and excitement will always be important science communication objectives

23

Change Perceptions of Honesty/Warmth

Change perceptions of openness/transparency

Reframe How Person Thinks about an Issue

Increase Knowledge

Change Perceptions of Competence


Increase Excitement



These are the ones that communication research emphasizes

But they’re not the only things you can try to achieve through communication …

etc.

24

Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …

Type of society

Inform/Educate

Interest/Excite

Defendscience

Show caring

Show openness

Frame issue

Show values

Hear others

Show expert

Chemistry 6.17 5.78 5.8 5.66 5.52 5.30 5.30 5.05 4.76Biochemistry 6.09 5.94 5.83 5.71 5.56 5.29 5.27 5.11 4.65General 6.20 5.92 5.79 5.70 5.47 5.30 5.27 5.12 4.77Microbiology 6.09 5.94 5.83 5.71 5.56 5.29 5.27 5.11 4.65Geophysical 6.21 5.86 5.60 5.49 5.34 5.25 5.07 4.84 4.72Geological 6.22 5.92 5.96 5.62 5.44 5.18 5.14 4.92 4.95Ecological 6.18 5.88 5.55 5.49 5.23 5.33 5.06 4.82 4.49

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-3.99

4.00-4.49

4.50-4.99

5.00-5.49

5.50-5.99

6.00-6.49

6.50-7.00

Typical SE is between .05 and .08

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Results of a 2015/2016 survey of ~2,500 scientists across 7 scientific societies

Communication channels are …

Face-to-face

Direct w/policy-makers

Online

Mediated

What do you say/do to communicate

willingness to listen?

What do you say/do to communicate

warmth?What do you say/do to communicate

competence?

Communication tactics are about message delivery…

What does it mean to know your “audience”?

Question 1: What actors can help me achieve my goals?Question 2: What actor-specific objectives would I need

to meet to make progress toward my goal?Question 3: Do I have the skills/resources/patience

needed to achieve these objectives through my available tactics and audiences?

Question 4: Is this the best use of my resources or are there better ways to achieve my goals?(Other communicators? Fewer risks?)

Green chemistry goals, objectives, and tactics

Maybe you the benefits and logic of green chemistry are so clear that everyone will demand change as soon as you share your wisdom?


Goal: Make the world a better place

through more use of green

chemistry ideas

Sub-Goal: Regulations

Sub-Goal: Industry adoption

Sub-Goal: Student course demand

Sub-Goal: Citizen Pressure

Audience: Attentive Public

Audience: Policy makers

Audience: Industry leaders

Audience: Future leaders

• Would it help if they knew more (about what)?

• Would a better relationship help (warmth/competence/perceived listening/ shared identity?)

• Do they feel “efficacious”

• Do they feel “normative” pressure?

• Are we framing the issue in the best way?

(Where can I find these people?)


A few words about framing …

Frame 1? Frame 2?

Half full vs. Half empty

Used vs. Pre-owned

Estate tax vs. Death tax

Pro-life vs. Pro-choice

“A few bad apples” vs. “Systemic rot”

Green chemistry vs. ______ chemistry


A few words about framing …

If you frame something as a “fight” or “war” then someone has to lose


Are you threatening the identity of people who you need to have relationships?Are asking people to choose sides?

Funny and/or cathartic

Equal effective communication

I have questions about the impact of these …

Final thoughts I …

There are no silver bullets

Not everyone is reachable

It takes time

Communication is not just education

Final thoughts II …

It might be okay to have a friend

photograph your wedding … This material is based upon work supported by the National

Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

But sometimes help is … helpful.