It can come as a surprise when, after ‘transmitting’ our research findings or laboured-over recommendations to the public, they are ignored and the audience’s behaviour, attitudes, or policies remain unchanged. A graph, table, or map, clearly showing our results may be completely misunderstood. Short, snappy, clearly written, evidence-based research results and findings may be met with scepticism, disbelief, or outrage. Worse, after inadvertently fanning the flames of outrage, we find ourselves spending a lot of time, putting out fires, and the chance for meaningful dialogue about our findings and implications for the audience, may be lost, or at least, long delayed, until public outrage dies down – with the audience’s trust in us and our message, in tatters. Why did that happen? What can we do differently?
If you are ‘the public’ in this example, you can probably think of times you’ve listened (or read) about recommendations, and think to yourself ‘that’s not going to work…’. You can think of many reasons why you and your neighbours may (or may not) heed their warnings. Maybe you have been involved in public engagement sessions where your concerns were expressed, but were dismissed.
Risk and science communicators have learned through research and practice, over the past few decades, that effective risk communication does not occur in a straightforward, one-way transmission of information. Simply providing people with information, however clearly written (in the author’s opinion) and factual, is not enough (Simis et al., 2016). Effectively communicating about risk requires much more than jargon-free language and carefully constructed graphs or tables. Fischhoff (1995), described the evolution of risk communication research and practice in his rather tongue-in-cheek description of risk communication research over two decades:
1. all we have to do is get the numbers right
2. all we have to do is tell them the numbers
3. all we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers
4. all we have to do is show them that they’ve accepted similar risks in the past
5. all we have to do is show them that it’s a good deal for them
6. all we have to do is treat them nicely
7. all we have to do is make them partners
8. all of the above.
Number eight presumably, was the state of the field, in 1995 when Fischhoff’s paper was published, and many more aspects of risk communication have been examined, since then. Effective risk communication is built around relationships – trust, credibility, respect, and making an effort to understand how to best reach people who may be affected by a risk or hazard. This involves getting to know your audiences, respecting and understanding their perspectives. It requires recognition that there are many factors that affect people’s understanding and experience of risk and hazard, and that there is no single, homogeneous ‘public’. It involves examining the ethics around risk communication and recognition that narratives (story-telling) can be effective for communicating risk. Message content, format, frame, timing, frequency, media, and many other factors relating to the risk itself, and the people receiving the message, affect whether people hear and and choose to act, or not, on risk-related messages. Check out Risk Communication Theory to learn about the underpinnings of currently recommended best practices. Risk Communication Basics by NOAA does a good job summarizing the vast field into a few key points to guide your work. Risk Communications and Behaviour – Best Practices and Research Findings offers a deeper treatment by NOAA aimed at atmospheric risk communication. Hopefully we can avoid repeating the common communication pitfalls described by Fischhoff (1995)!
Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: 20 Years of Process. Risk Analysis. 15(2):137-145.
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749.
Brown, V., Fauver, S., Geppi, D., Haynes, A., Klockow, K., & Nagele, D. (2016). Risk Communication and Behavior: Best Practices and Research Findings (p. 67). Silver Spring Maryland, USA: NOAA Science Committee.