Team science for science communication

Natural scientists from Climate Central and social scientists from Carnegie Mellon University collaborated to develop science communications aimed at presenting personalized coastal flood risk information to the public. We encountered four main challenges: agreeing on goals; balancing complexity and simplicity; relying on data, not intuition; and negotiating external pressures. Each challenge demanded its own approach. We navigated agreement on goals through intensive internal communication early on in the project. We balanced complexity and simplicity through evaluation of communication materials for user understanding and scientific content. Early user test results that overturned some of our intuitions strengthened our commitment to testing communication elements whenever possible. Finally, we did our best to negotiate external pressures through regular internal communication and willingness to compromise.

[1]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Risk communication: A mental models approach , 2003 .

[2]  Susan M. and Gore Michael M. and Bryant Chris Stocklmayer,et al.  Science communication in theory and practice , 2001 .

[3]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Characterizing Mental Models of Hazardous Processes: A Methodology and an Application to Radon , 1992 .

[4]  Claire Marris,et al.  Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths , 2001 .

[5]  R. Merton.  THE FOCUSSED INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUPS CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES , 1987 .

[6]  S. Wade.  Research on Importance and Interest: Implications for Curriculum Development and Future Research , 2001 .

[7]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  The sciences of science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  I. Lipkus.  Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  W. Levinson,et al.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. , 1999, JAMA.

[10]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females' STD risk: a randomized controlled trial. , 2004, Social science & medicine.

[11]  R. Scott Baldwin,et al.  Effects of Topic Interest and Prior Knowledge on Reading Comprehension. , 1985 .

[13]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  Interest and Its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning , 1990 .

[14]  André Faaij,et al.  Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage technologies in the Netherlands , 2009 .

[15]  Nancy Ver Steegh,et al.  Yes, No, and Maybe: Informed Decision Making About Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence , 2006 .

[16]  John A. Hall,et al.  Global sea level rise scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment , 2012 .

[17]  Micheal J. Kelly,et al.  Managing Alliance Relationships: Key Challenges in the Early Stages of Collaboration , 2002 .

[18]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Use of Information in Decision Making: An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Computer-Based Decision Aids , 1992, MIS Q..

[19]  B. Wynne,et al.  Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs , 2001, Science as culture.

[20]  D. Myers.  Intuition: Its Powers and Perils , 2002 .

[21]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[22]  H. Dowlatabadi,et al.  Influencing attitudes toward carbon capture and sequestration: a social marketing approach. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  A. Spence,et al.  The Psychological Distance of Climate Change , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[24]  D. Mertens.  Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods , 1997 .

[25]  R. Naiman.  A Perspective on Interdisciplinary Science , 1999, Ecosystems.

[26]  Guy Cook,et al.  ‘The Scientists Think and the Public Feels’: Expert Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food , 2004 .

[27]  P. Ackerman.  A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge , 1996 .

[28]  Kara L Hall,et al.  Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[29]  W. Weaver.  Science and complexity. , 1948, American scientist.

[30]  Iris Grossmann,et al.  Does it make sense to modify tropical cyclones? A decision-analytic assessment. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[31]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach , 2001 .

[32]  M. Wolf,et al.  Low literacy impairs comprehension of prescription drug warning labels , 2006, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[33]  Gregory M Dominick,et al.  African American Men’s Understanding and Perceptions About Prostate Cancer: Why Multiple Dimensions of Health Literacy are Important in Cancer Communication , 2009, Journal of Community Health.

[34]  Noriko Hara,et al.  An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[36]  A. Lusardi.  Financial Literacy: An Essential Tool for Informed Consumer Choice? , 2008 .

[37]  Daniel Stokols,et al.  Toward a Science of Transdisciplinary Action Research , 2006, American journal of community psychology.

[38]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[39]  W. G. Strand,et al.  How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise? , 2005, Science.

[40]  Cara L Cuite,et al.  A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[41]  H. Tan,et al.  How does readability influence investors' judgments? Consistency of benchmark performance matters , 2015 .

[42]  V. Reyna,et al.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science , 1994, Cognition.

[44]  Kara L Hall,et al.  The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[45]  E. Miller.  Handbook of Social Psychology , 1946, Mental Health.

[46]  C. Marris.  Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public? , 2001, EMBO reports.

[47]  C. Singh.  Problem Solving and Learning , 2009, 1602.06352.

[48]  France Légaré,et al.  Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[49]  I. R. Pashby,et al.  Effective University - Industry Interaction: A Multi-case Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects , 2002 .

[50]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective☆ , 1978 .

[51]  Julie Thompson Klein,et al.  Prospects for transdisciplinarity , 2004 .