Maarten van der Sanden wants clarity in communications

Dialogue has become a buzzword in science communication. Many governmental initiatives involving information transfer use dialogue as a selling point. We have, for example, a dialogue on genetic manipulation, a dialogue on the scientific future of Europe, a dialogue on food safety.

Dialogue has almost become a communication target on its own, beside such things as public understanding or awareness of science. However, it is simply one way of enquiring into ideas; and science communication would benefit from making it clearer.

Facts and concepts

Dialogue is important in different ways to public awareness and engagement, on the one hand, and public understanding of science, on the other.

Take, for example, communicating with a lay audience on predictive genetic tests. If the public is informed and interested, one could have a dialogue on how lay people might use or abuse test results, or on the technical details. It would be a dialogue on facts. However, if the audience is not well informed, or even hostile to genetic tests, a dialogue might be needed on the credibility of the industry producing the tests, or on concepts like the ethical role of the industry within our society.

Dialogue on public understanding is about the facts related to a scientific development, and the use of those facts. With public awareness of science, however, dialogue is about concepts and constructs like credibility. 

There is no use in just starting a dialogue for the sake of a dialogue, even when the European Parliament is asking for it. We need to be careful in choosing whether to concentrate the dialogue on facts or concepts. Lack of clarity about this often results in a dialogue of the deaf.

Ideas and emotions

Several authors have studied the subject of knowledge from a psychological viewpoint – the ideas and emotions that people bring to knowledge – as well as from a philosophical point of view.

The literature on ideas and emotions about medical science, for example, describes three basic cultural axes which could play a role in science communication. These are natural/artificial, tradition/change and health/disease. These primary axes allow audiences to relate to an unfamiliar subject.

Taking the example of communicating about predictive genetic tests again: a lay audience might be positioned near the natural, traditional ends of these axes. It would then be prejudiced against trusting all artificial medicine and medical techniques. Communication with such an audience is more effective when it targets the feeling of distrust instead of the technical information of the predictive tests. There is no use in giving more information or repeating the message when the audience is not willing to listen. 

Science promotion using dialogue maintains it is possible to ‘change’ an individual from a believer in tradition to a believer in change. However, the effect of such a communication process is difficult to measure.

We need clarity

Science communication professionals and researchers should sort out these and other differences if they are to be more effective.

Before starting to design a science communication process, one should ask questions about four parameters. The first is the background of target audiences: the psychological dimension we described above. This will affect the way the audience uses scientific knowledge and the credibility it gives it. The second is which method to use: would science promotion or science education be better? The third is the aims of the communication, for example engagement or understanding. The fourth, as we’ve also touched on above, is whether dialogue should be about concepts or facts. Is it to be a dialogue on distrust of medical technology, or a dialogue on the technical details of a new medical technology? If these questions go unanswered, the communication might be less effective than expected.

Our current research at the Delft University of Technology, and the VU-University Medical Centre, is about developing an instrument which supports science communication professionals in making such decisions, and in turn supports science communication researchers in learning about the questions from practice.

This article is based on: Maarten C.A. van der Sanden and Frans J. Meijman (2008) Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1): pp.89-103

Maarten C.A. van der Sanden PhD teaches science communication at the Delft University of Technology

Frans J. Meijman is Professor of Medical Science Communication, Journalism, and its History, at the VU-University Medical Center in Amsterdam