Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication

Horst, Maja

doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9306-y

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Describing these discoveries and relationships often requires new language or using existing language in unusual ways. Many nonscientists, however, find our lexicon difficult to access: they see many scientific presentations as needlessly abstract and disconnected from their lives (5,6). Audiences who see scientific presentations in these ways have less motivation to pay attention to them (7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating science in politicized environments

Lupia

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

149

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many members of the scientific community attempt to convey information to policymakers and the public. Much of this information is ignored or misinterpreted. This article describes why these outcomes occur and how science communicators can achieve better outcomes. The article focuses on two challenges associated with communicating scientific information to such audiences. One challenge is that people have less capacity to pay attention to scientific presentations than many communicators anticipate. A second challenge is that people in politicized environments often make different choices about whom to believe than do people in other settings. Together, these challenges cause policymakers and the public to be less responsive to scientific information than many communicators desire. Research on attention and source credibility can help science communicators better adapt to these challenges. Attention research clarifies when, and to what type of stimuli, people do (and do not) pay attention. Source credibility research clarifies the conditions under which an audience will believe scientists' descriptions of phenomena rather than the descriptions of less-valid sources. Such research can help communicators stay true to their science while making their findings more memorable and more believable to more audiences.embers of the scientific community share a frustration: many attempts to communicate science are badly received (1-4). This frustration is particularly evident in politicized environments: that is, settings where decisions on divisive public issues must be made.These communicative frustrations are salient because many scientists work hard to make socially valuable discoveries. Science can help nonscientists make better decisions. However, scientists often find that their advice is ignored or willfully misinterpreted. This article seeks to help science communicators expand the set of circumstances in which they can achieve better outcomes.In some respects, the difficulty of communicating science to broader audiences is easily explained. Scientists discover new phenomena as well as new relationships among existing phenomena. Describing these discoveries and relationships often requires new language or using existing language in unusual ways. Many nonscientists, however, find our lexicon difficult to access: they see many scientific presentations as needlessly abstract and disconnected from their lives (5, 6). Audiences who see scientific presentations in these ways have less motivation to pay attention to them (7). If such motivations are sufficiently low, seeds for communicative failure are sown.We, as scientists and science communicators, can improve how scientific information is conveyed to policymakers and the public. One way to realize this potential is to build from a social scientific knowledge base that can help communicators develop more realistic expectations about when others will pay attention to us and when they will believe what we write and say. This knowledge base can help science communicators ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating science in politicized environments

Lupia

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

149

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This communication instrument not only speaks to our eyes or intellect, but also through tactile and kinesthetic sensations. 9 In this kind of work both creativity and its ultimate expression are part of the technique. A strong sensory experience is created with the active presence and participation of the spectator.…”

Section: Art Installationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The object of art in science: science communication via art installation

Rios¹,

Negrete²

2013

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science is part of our everyday live; so is art. Some art installations that link the two require the active presence of the spectator. Thereby they help to raise the awareness, promote understanding, and generate an emotional response from the public. This project rests on the public participation model that seeks to explore the connection between art installations and science communication through experiential learning. In order to test the effectiveness of an art installation communicating science two groups were contrasted. The first was exposed to a list of scientific facts; the second participated in the creation of an art installation. The results of this research suggest that art installations do promote long-term fact retention. Therefore, the use of art installations can be considered an interesting method of conveying science in an attractive, reliable, and memorable way.

show abstract

“…I take these questions to be the central lesson from Maya Horst's article, ''Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication.'' The article looks at what researchers can learn about science communication from the experiment of a spatial installation on social science knowledge about the public engagement process (Horst 2011). The experiment-which researchers in science studies should all celebrate and accept as a mode of research to be further used and reflected upon-helps those of us in science and technology studies see more clearly that reliable knowledge about the natural (and social) world exists only as the result of a social process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Members of the public are not simply ''co-creators of the installation,'' and ''translation'' is productive not simply because ''it will always create different and additional meanings'' (Horst 2011, citing Latour 1987. The Latourian focus on ''meanings'' suggests that they are the goal or outcome.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this manner, the installation was conceived as a social scientific laboratory that could make researchers sensitive to unfamiliar forms of objections, with the possibility of learning something new [emphasis added]'' (Horst 2011). If one takes seriously the belief that reliable knowledge is produced only through an elaborate social process, and if one recognizes that every instantiation of that knowledge is different, then it seems trivial to accept that Horst and Dalsgaard's installation produced knowledge that was new to both participants and social science researchers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation