Scientific storytelling: A narrative strategy for scientific communicators

Torres, David H.; Pruim, Douglas E.

doi:10.1080/17404622.2017.1400679

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants across perspectives expressed that they valued when a scientist had first‐hand experience and knowledge of a landscape; perhaps scientists could use their own anecdotes to spark a conversation and foster trust and credibility with stakeholders. Anecdotes and storytelling can improve science communication (Suzuki et al 2018, Torres and Pruim 2019), and the value that participants placed on anecdotes about a landscape might be particularly useful when communicating about wildlife management. When talking with stakeholders across perspectives, scientists could demonstrate their first‐hand experience by mentioning local geographic names, referencing climactic conditions over the previous years, or recounting how many days they have spent in the field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing Complexity and Context to Improve Science Communication

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Members of the public play a primary role in successful implementation of wildlife management plans, making communication between scientists and the public a vital component of wildlife management. Although there is substantial public interest in the health of ungulate populations, stakeholder perspectives can vary widely, rendering a single approach to communication ineffective. To improve science communication, we characterized perspectives regarding issues negatively affecting mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Wyoming, USA. We used Q methodology, a mixed quantitative‐qualitative approach where participants ranked a series of statements followed by semi‐structured interviews, to identify shared perspectives. We interviewed individuals (n = 37) representing prominent stakeholder groups (e.g., ranchers, hunters, conservation non‐profits) in Wyoming. We identified 3 perspectives (52% of variance explained) that captured shared views regarding what factors are negatively affecting mule deer: bottom‐up (n = 17 participants; 26% variance), human contributions (n = 9; 14% variance), and top‐down (n = 8; 12% variance) perspectives. Most participants shared the idea that mule deer are being negatively affected, but participants diverged in views as to the primary issues. Perspectives ranged from being focused on bottom‐up factors (e.g., habitat fragmentation, condition of winter ranges) to top‐down factors (e.g., predation, disease) to factors focused on human contributions (e.g., human activity, public and political interests). Based on how participants diverged in perspectives and their interest in mule deer management, we discuss opportunities for scientists to improve communication by incorporating ecological complexity and nuance, moving towards a 2‐way dialogue of communication, and sharing their own first‐hand experiences in future communications with stakeholders. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing Complexity and Context to Improve Science Communication

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the case study projects deemed to have synthesised knowledge best used multiple methods of synthesis simultaneously. The case studies built on the benefits of individual synthesis methods such as modelling with stakeholder participation [17]; co-development [71]; place-based synthesis to anchor the project in the context of the user, e.g., [67]; and narratives to synthesise multiple perspectives [72] and communicate complex information [73], and combined the results in various ways to reflect that different people understand information in different ways, e.g., [74]. As no method of synthesis is complete, all focus on different aspects.…”

Section: Domain 1 Synthesising Disciplinary and Stakeholder Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research

Robson-Williams

Small²,

Robson-Williams

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The socio-environmental challenges the world faces are ‘swamps’: situations that are messy, complex, and uncertain. The aim of this paper is to help disciplinary scientists navigate these swamps. To achieve this, the paper evaluates an integrative framework designed for researching complex real-world problems, the Integration and Implementation Science (i2S) framework. As a pilot study, we examine seven inter and transdisciplinary agri-environmental case studies against the concepts presented in the i2S framework, and we hypothesise that considering concepts in the i2S framework during the planning and delivery of agri-environmental research will increase the usefulness of the research for next users. We found that for the types of complex, real-world research done in the case studies, increasing attention to the i2S dimensions correlated with increased usefulness for the end users. We conclude that using the i2S framework could provide handrails for researchers, to help them navigate the swamps when engaging with the complexity of socio-environmental problems.

show abstract

“…If a topic is not interesting enough, a story is able to evoke interest and the ability to remember its content in the long term. The chronological structure of a story can help people to assimilate even abstract subjects ( 29 , 30 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Humor and Fear—Two Sides of the Same Coin?: Experimental Evidence on Humor Appeals in Health Communication Related to Childhood Vaccination

Fischer

Carow

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until now, health communication has largely failed to debunk fears and caveats related to vaccination. This study aims to investigate the effects of different text types used in health communication in an experimental study design. A neutrally formulated text was compared to a humorous text using the formula of a fairytale. Overall, the study indicates no additional value in using the humorous format as an innovative and target-group-oriented approach to inform readers about scientific evidence related to vaccination. Although the effects of the two text types do not differ, the credibility of the neutrally formulated text was much more likely to be judged as high. This indicates that the perception of credibility is not the only criterion in health communication leading to knowledge gains and changes in health-related attitudes and behaviors.

show abstract

Scientific storytelling: A narrative strategy for scientific communicators

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Embracing Complexity and Context to Improve Science Communication

Embracing Complexity and Context to Improve Science Communication

Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research

Humor and Fear—Two Sides of the Same Coin?: Experimental Evidence on Humor Appeals in Health Communication Related to Childhood Vaccination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About