For those in the DC area, tomorrow I will be giving the following presentation at AAAS HQ as part of the Science Policy Alliance speaker series. Breakfast is at 730 and the talk kick-offs at 815. I'm told about 180 people have RSVPed. I hope some readers can make it!
In the presentation, I explain why the dominant models of science communication--the science literacy and public engagement models--are incomplete, especially when thinking about how the public makes up its mind about contemporary controversies such as those over stem cell research or global warming.
In fact, when thinking about the 'mass public"--or how most Americans, most of the time make up their minds about these issues--there is nothing unique about science debates relative to ordinary political ones. The same rules and general patterns apply in understanding the interactions between strategic communication efforts, media coverage, and public opinion.
In the presentation, I explain the widely misunderstood concept of framing, and show how framing is being used to activate partisanship and religious identity as "perceptual screens" that guide interpretations of controversial topics such as stem cell research and global warming. I also discuss how framing can be used as an engagement tool that complements current efforts focused on formal science education, mass mediated popular science, and deliberative forum/town hall type meetings.
- Log in to post comments
Sounds like an important subject. Where can we get a writeup on the contents?
I think that the best way to frame science is as history. Our current science curriculum, in high school as well as undergraduate college (and even in lower grades) presents science as a set of skills and a method for applying those skills to understanding and manipulating the physical world; science teachers, in effect, are teaching kids to do science.
Most of them won't, of course. But more would, I believe, if science were presented as a major thread (perhaps the most important thread) in world history. The stories are involving, and the personalities vibrant, and the science that the kids learn along the way is the best science and the most exciting - the stuff that happens at the leading edge. Those who choose, then, to "go into" science will have some idea of why they've made that choice. There's plenty of time to learn how to do it.
I'm not sure that this is really a "framing" issue, but it feels like one to me. If that's not what we mean by the term, perhaps we need to revisit our definition.
Richard