Reading the comments on my post and Chad’s post about the different societal attitudes towards humanities and arts and math and science (especially in terms of what “basic” knowledge a well-educated person ought to have), I get the feeling that some interesting assumptions are at play. Since I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, I’m just going to lay out some of the hypotheses that have occurred to me as I’ve read through these discussions:
Category Archives: Scientist/layperson relations
Fear and loathing in the academy.
Today Chad has an interesting post about attitudes among academics toward math and science versus the humanities and arts. The general attitude Chad sees on display in his academic milieu is that a gappy knowledge of art history or music or literature is something to be embarrassed about, but when it comes to innumeracy or scientific ignorance, intellectuals have no shame.
Chad writes:
Minor epiphany about framing.
In the aftermath of Sizzle Tuesday, Orac wrote a post posing a challenge to the science communicators:
How would you deal with antivaccinationism? What “frames” would you use to combat the likes of Jenny McCarthy?
In the comments on Orac’s post, Matthew C. Nisbet turned up:
The anti-vaccine movement is a perfect issue to examine how framing has shaped communication dynamics and public opinion; and how various groups have brought framing strategies to bear in the policy debate.
I personally haven’t had time to do research on the topic. …
To understand and to make recommendations about the anti-vaccine movement, you would need to conduct polling, focus groups, and do an analysis of media coverage.
That’s the point I’ve made about framing from the beginning. It involves taking a scientific and research-based approach to science communication. Do the research, combine it with an understanding of past studies on science communication, and then plot a strategy.
Unfortunately too many bloggers think framing is something you whip up on the back of an envelope, and in the process they have little concept of what a frame might be, or understand the research in the area.
And finally, I think, I came to understand a crucial way in which the pro-framing camp and the “framing skeptics” have been talking past each other.
They will know we’re people of reason by our …
I have misgivings about wading into Crackergate — indeed, even about dipping my toe into the edge of the pool (which is all I’m promising here) — but here goes.
First, let me commend the thoughtful posts by Mark Chu-Carroll and John Wilkins on the issue. If you haven’t read them yet, read them now. (If you’ve already read them, read them again.)
Next, let me set forth the disclaimers that I’d hope would be obvious:
Movie Review: Sizzle.
Randy Olson’s newest film, Sizzle, bears the subtitle, “a global warming comedy”. To my mind, it delivered neither the laughs nor the engagement with the issue of global warming that it promised. Maybe this is just a sign that I fall outside the bounds of Olson’s intended audience, but perhaps the biggest question this movie left me with was who precisely Olson is trying to reach with Sizzle.
Simon Blackburn on ‘the myth of the scientist’.
Via Crooked Timber, I see that philosopher Simon Blackburn would like to dispel some myths. (He does this in the inaugural article of a Times Higher Education series “in which academics range beyond their area of expertise”.) Of the ten myths Blackburn identifies for busting, the one that caught my attention was “the myth of the scientist”:
Considering the science world’s ‘massive communication problem’.
In the aftermath of a pretty enthusiastic pile-on to a claim that Expelled! had a successful first week of release, Chris Mooney calls for “serious introspection about the massive communication crisis we’re facing in the science world”.
You know I’m always up for introspection.
It’s news that a teenager is skeptical?
I heard a piece by David Kestenbaum on NPR’s “Morning Edition” that hasn’t been sitting right with me. You, dear readers, get to help me figure out what’s bugging me about the story, a profile of 16-year-old climate skeptic Kristen Byrnes.
Trying to understand framing (III): the example of stem cell research.
I haven’t given up yet. You know I’m still looking for more clarity on the basic premises of framing. I tried to work out what does and does not fall within the framing strategy in a flowcharted example and (again) came away with a bunch of unanswered questions.
This round, I’m going to look at an example from the Nisbet and Scheufele article in The Scientist (a link to the PDF given here. I’ll confess that I’m still confused, but I think I’m getting closer to identifying precisely what I’m confused about.
Here’s what Nisbet and Scheufele say in The Scientist article about communication about stem cell research:
Trying to understand framing (II): draw me a picture.
You’ll remember that I tried to work out precisely what was being claimed in the premises behind framing set out by Chris Mooney. At the end of this exercise, I was left with the hunch that one’s optimal communication strategy — and how much scientific detail it will require — might depend an awful lot on what kind of message you’re trying to get across to your audience, to the point where trying to generalize about framing doesn’t seem very helpful. At least, it’s not helpful to me as I’m still trying to understand the strategy.
So, I’m hopeful that those who are hip to the framing thing can help me work through a less general example, presented on the hand-drawn flowchart below: