The Scientist: To Frame or Not to Frame
Matthew Nisbit & Dietram A. Scheufele have a cover story for The Scientist on Framing science communication. It starts with a quote from Larry Page, Google Co-founder, that "science has a serious marketing problem." Here’s the take home message:
The Scientist : The Future of Public Engagement
Tailoring communication efforts to fit with publics from different social and educational backgrounds is not an option, it is a necessity. Using communication tools such as framing to help citizens make connections between their everyday lives, their specific values, and the world of science is by no means a magical key to unlocking public appreciation for science, but it is a first step.
The authors are dealing with a thorny and pressing issue, one that arguably not necessarily a science question. By that I mean it may not be a task for scientists, and today’s scientists are mostly not up for the task.
The way the authors framed the question suggests an analogy: science as consumer products or services. If the goal of science is to sell to the public, as the authors and Larry Page allegedly argue, just ask yourself who is doing the selling of iPods, Yahoo ads, and every other industrial product? Not the engineers. Not even Apple or Yahoo themselves. They hire the Pros, those who know how to spin — or Frame. It is — as the authors allured to — an art of exploiting irationality.
But the goal of science is not to sell. You need a different degree to do that, one that most likely does not have the letter "D" in it. Scientists are by definition knowledge specialists who sees and thinks differently from nonspecialists of a domain. There are specialists on communications. Alas, they are all getting big fat pay checks from media companies (or not). Very few are working on science communication, and even fewer do it effectively. I don’t see how your rank and file scientists can do better than they can. If the Government or Google — the Big G’s — is interested in solving this science marketing problem (or more frankly the challenge of steering public opinions), they should invest in a Science Propaganda Department, under the Department of Truth.
The authors correctly identified the "Popular Science" theory of science communication deficiency. But where does it come from? Putting on my psychologist hat, let me suggest it’s a theory invented and shared by fellow scientists or scientists-to-bes. In other words, this is made up to justify the gap between how they think and the deficiencies in "public thinking". The (implicit) logic goes:
I used to be a member of the general public -> I went through science education -> I know this stuff,
So, any member of the general public can understand this stuff had they gone through the same education.
Science communication is accelerated science education, so it should just work.
Sharp-eyed readers can quickly identify many holes of the reasoning. But is the "Framing" framework any better than the "Popular Science" model? I doubt. I am deeply troubled by its logic, as I read it:
The general public is ignorant, illogical, and uninterested when it comes to science itself. Rather, they are opinionated and driven by self/special-interests.
The way to sway their opinions is to appeal to — or exploit – their inherent cognitive deficiencies and biases; Science therefore should be framed in such a way that it achieves a well-calculated self-interest goal, while maintaining the apparence that we are just making it easy on you.
That, IMHO, is propaganda, to say the least. I do not deny that this is the game in town right now and everybody else is doing it. But does that license — or worst, force — scientists to follow suit? Scientists are neither saints nor sages. I guess the only commonality among them is a commitment to truth, or at least a rational approach in searching for truth. Once you subject that to some other goals (such as to increase funding for X; or just to get funding), oh, we’ve all seen what could happen [add your citations here].
I agree with the authors that one shouldn’t expect the "public" to be as enthusiastic or knowledgable about science as we are, just like I can’t be a specialist on everything. But I will not go down the path of Proactive Framing. I believe it’s far more persuasive if we appeal to the intellectual curiosity of the public than their preexisting mental frameworks. I find it personally rewarding breaking people’s frames and force them to think different ways. To do so, one needs communicative skills (which I am learning, slowly), but more importantly, the weight of rationality and evidence.
So my take on Framing:
It’s perhaps a useful technique, but it’s too high a kick for most scientists to master, and it disturbs their inner peace. Plus, bullies on the block do it better than you can. Winning the hearts and minds (I’d put minds first) of the general public? I don’t have a solution. But I can see this Framing idea working like the Troop Surge — it will backfire.
For today’s meditation session, though, let’s concentrate on your first personal encounters with the power of reasoning, the exuberance of discovering, the Eureka moment when you actually understood something. Now project that Shock and Awe to the world.
Knowledge is power.