ASC2018 - 11-15 Nov, Sydney

by

I’ll see it when I believe it: motivated numeracy in Australians’ perceptions of climate change risk

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T8

People don’t form attitudes about Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) risks just by empirically considering the likelihood of harm, the consequences of failing to act, and the costs and benefits of mitigation. If that was the case, there should be little disagreement about these quantifiable outputs of scientific research. However, when people consider controversial topics of decision-relevant science like ACC they often defer to their political beliefs, rather than using their cognitive abilities alone, leading to polarised groups. Counterintuitively, Kahan et al. (2017) found that more numerate people, who have the cognitive ability to interpret scientific data, were more polarised than others about the effectiveness of gun control laws on crime in the United States of America.

In our conceptual replication of this important study we investigated whether the motivated numeracy effect found in Kahan et al. (2017) also applies to people when assessing ACC risks. This randomised controlled experiment (N = 504) of Australian adults, extends the motivated reasoning thesis by finding evidence that some people who consider topics of ACC risk use motivated numeracy to rationalise their interpretations of scientific data in line with their beliefs.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions

Presenter

Matt Nurse, Masters degree candidate, CPAS, Australian National University

Co-Author
Will Grant

by

Designing methodologies with impact: A critical view on research

When: Tuesday, 13th November 9:15-11:15am
Where: L2, Level 2 to the left of the registration/foyer area, down the hallway and through the doors on the right
Hashtag: #T5

Different approaches and processes can be implemented as part of a research project – but the best approach is the one that will get you the most accurate assessment! Even using the right approach does not guarantee valid findings – It has to be the right question!
This workshop will address best practice approaches to designing research programs that combine scientific rigour with practical efficiency. We will look at the philosophy underpinning different approaches and how and when different techniques should be used. We will conclude with a discussion on how published research should be evaluated.

Presenter

Clifford Lewis, Lecturer, Charles Sturt University

by

Mapping the science writing and communication landscape in Canada using new media and traditional survey research tools

When: Tuesday 13th November, 4:00pm – 5:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T12

The social media landscape presents new challenges for science communication that have not yet been fully understood. This Canadian government-funded project, conducted by researchers in partnership with ASC’s sister organizations in Canada (the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada, SWCC, and the Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec, ACS), aimed to identify who is currently communicating about science in Canada and how they are doing it. Using emerging new media research tools (Altmetrics and Netlytics) and commonly-used hashtags (i.e. #scicomm; #commsci, and #sciart) we identified 256 dedicated social media science communicators (197 Twitter and 59 Instagram) located in Canada. We surveyed these social media communicators about their communication practices and compared their survey responses to survey responses gathered from association members (254 SWCC members and 309 ACS members). Findings show that, compared to association members, the social media communicators we identified through new media mapping were younger (26-36 years of age), paid less (or not at all) for their science communication activities, and had been communicating science for fewer years (2-5 years compared to 10 years or more). More members of the social media group had a science background (rather than communication, journalism or education background). Fewer of the social media communicators were members of related professional associations, however, more were members of informal science writing/communication networks. The social media communicators used a greater diversity of media tools to communicate when compared to association members. We will discuss how the findings from this research project are being used to inform professional member association policies, training and outreach activities to improve the quality of public engagement with science in Canada.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring new and social media

Presenter

Dr Michelle Riedlinger, Associate Professor, University of Fraser Valley, Canada

Co-Author
Germana Barata
Alexandre Schiele

by

A sea of deficit: The science communication landscape in Australia

When: Tuesday 13th November, 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Where: Theatre, Level 2 down the stairs to the right of the registration/foyer area
Hashtag: #T8

Science communication has been predicated on the deficit model —top-down, one-way communication from scientists to public audiences seen as “… empty vessels – as minds in deficit that need scientific information in order to be replete” [1]. This model has been discredited for 30 years, with research showing that more scientific information does not lead to the desired objectives of increased scientific literacy or public acceptance or agreement with science [2, 3]. And so a new mood for dialogue was identified in the U.K. House of Lords 2000 report [4], which consequently led to the UK’s Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) closing itself down stating: “We have reached the conclusion that the top-down approach which COPUS currently exemplifies is no longer appropriate to the wider agenda that the science communication community is now addressing” [5].

Despite the above, our research suggests that the deficit model not only persists in Australia — it prevails. This study examines the science communication landscape in Australia, specifically during National Science Week in August 2018. Approximately 1300 activity organisers across Australia were asked to complete a short online activity profile survey. Based on the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLO) framework [6] and the CAISE Informal Science Education project framework [7], the survey contained questions about individual activity objectives, style and format. A total of 305 individual activity profiles were collected and categorised using the CAISE project framework.

The results show that across Australia, 71% of National Science Week activities classified as deficit model, while only 3% classified as dialogue or engagement model. This result is higher than the almost 60% of 411 activities categorised as deficit model in the Inspiring Australia audit in 2012 [8]. Based on the research discrediting this model, we argue that the prevalence of the deficit model in Australia may be impacting the effectiveness of science communication efforts in achieving desired objectives.

References
1. Gregory, J. and S. Miller, Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. 1998, New York: Plenum.
2. Durant, J.R., G.A. Evans, and G.P. Thomas, The public understanding of science. Nature, 1989. 340(6228): p. 11-14.
3. Thomas, G. and J. Durant, Why should we promote the public understanding of science. Scientific literacy papers, 1987. 1: p. 1-14.
4. House of Lords, Science and Society. 2000, House of Lords: London.
5. Copus, Statement on Copus by the British Assiciation, the Royal Institution and the Royal Society. 2002, The Royal Society: London.
6. Hooper-Greenhill, E., et al., Measuring the Outcomes and Impact of Learning in Museums, archives and Libraries. 2003, University of Leicester: Research centre for Museum and Galleries.
7. McCallie, E., et al., Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. 2009, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE): Washington, D.C.
8. Metcalfe, J., K. Alford, and J. Shore, National audit of Australian science engagement activities. 2012, Inspiring Australia: Canberra, Australia.

Session

Evidence-based scicom: Research exploring knowledge, beliefs and perceptions

Presenter

Isabelle Kingsley, PhD candidate, Science Communication, University of New South Wales

Co-Author
Dr Carol Oliver, Senior Research Fellow, University of New South Wales

Australian Science Communicators

About ASC.

@auscicomm

ASC on Facebook

Questions? Please contact Kali on asc2018@asc.asn.au.

Acknowledgements

© 2018 Australian Science Communicators

Editor Login.

SPONSORED BY

SUPPORTED BY

TRADE EXHIBITORS