Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Communication art and science 2012
Similar to Communication art and science 2012 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Communication art and science 2012
- 1. Agricultural Communications Do you hear Art and science in me now? communication Beth Forbes Department Head June 12, 2012
- 2. Attention limited • People “hear” about 25 to 50% of any message and mainly what is relevant to them • That means, you’ll only get about 20 minutes of this presentation, if I’m lucky 2
- 3. Rule of seven • Our working memory can remember 7 things (phone #s) • Marketing messages must be heard 7 times before acted on 3
- 4. Attention limited • Today only 13% of the U.S. public says they follow science and technology news closely • …was 20% in 1996 • Estimates only five full- time science writers in major media 4
- 5. The role of art… …when communicating
- 6. Visuals speak 6
- 7. Visuals stick • Research shows that people shown 2,500 pictures for 10 seconds each, correctly identified the same photos days later with 90% accuracy Standing, Conezio & Haber, 1970 7
- 8. Visuals speak • Images that summarize or illustrate points in text, aid understanding 8
- 9. Visuals speak • Photos that only add interest “seductive detail” without supporting the text, diminish understanding Harp & Mayer 1998 9
- 10. Activate senses • Words that evoke smells, (cinnamon, coffee) activate other parts of the brain • Same with texture words, (soft like velvet, rough or leathery) arouse more of the brain 10
- 11. Print vs. Online • Print readers view an image, then words • Online readers scan words first, then images Adams, Quinn & Edmonds, 2007 11
- 12. Print vs. Online • Readers remember more from print than online • Print pubs have more physical “cues” to aid memory • Online news is “ephemeral” Santana, Livingston & Cho, 2011 12
- 13. People like people • Many climate change stories show pictures of the earth, more effective to show how people will be impacted 13
- 14. More effective 14
- 15. To get through • Use art to explain text • Unnecessary visuals distract from the message • Sensory words (smell, touch) engage more of the brain • Tell people stories 15
- 16. The science… …of science communication
- 17. Confessions • Chronicle article claims Extension info “sells” products • Report questions corporate-sponsored research • National commodity group rants study is “not like reality” 17
- 18. On the same page? • A Belgium study found that farmers and citizens agree on animal welfare concepts • However, farmers equate it with health • Citizens, think of natural behaviors 18
- 19. Talking past each other • Sometimes opposing sides deliberately talk about different things • Pink slime – safe food or disgusting mess? 19
- 20. Lots in the middle • Only about 10-15% of people are on the extremes of any given issue, like climate change • That means 70-80% are somewhere in the middle 20
- 21. Science on both sides • Climate change – both extremes use science as a basis for beliefs • …Even though the consensus of scientists believe in climate change 21
- 22. Media bias? • In a two year review of newspaper opeds and letters, 73% supported climate change • Reflects the general public – 71% believe evidence of climate change 22
- 23. Absent scientists • Scientists largely absent from opeds and letters to the editor – 43% journalists – 28% citizens – Less than 5% scientists Hoffman, 2011 23
- 24. Not a lack of knowledge • Education levels do not predict trust in science • Sometimes the most educated, the most suspicious 24
- 25. Cultural cognition • People take positions shared by important others • Based on race, religion, income, politics, etc. • They will not accept beliefs that make them “outcasts” or go against values 25
- 26. Science to blame? • Scientists skeptical • Debate findings • Controlled studies • “Ivory tower” mindset 26
- 27. Trust is key • People do trust scientists – about 71% of Americans • However, scientists who cross the line - advocating policy advice - lower public trust 27
- 28. Getting through • Be transparent, list funders and affiliations • Talk about benefits, risks, options and uncertainties • Affirm people’s values 28
- 29. Getting through • Provide diverse opinions with several experts • Collaborate with those in the “real-world” • Seek feedback 29
Editor's Notes
- When delivering new messages, sometimes we feel we have communicated even if we only said it once. People “hear” roughly 25 percent of any message and mainly only what’s relevant to them. The other 75 percent of their brains is concerned with who’s sending the message, its timing, current workloads, deadlines, and personal matters. Depending on the study being quoted, we remember between 25% and 50% of what we hear. That means that when you talk to your boss, colleagues, customers or spouse for 10 minutes, they pay attention to less than half of the conversation. So today, we’ll focus on ways to try to improve on this statistic by better understanding the art and science of communication.
- Scientists tell us that our brain can remember about 7 things plus or minus two, at one time. That is one of the reasons that phone numbers have 7 digets. In marketing, advertisers claim that we have to hear an advertisement 7 times before we get it and act on it. So to think that we can simply say something once, and that others will automatically comprehend it and act on it – is all wet. Just ask any parent.
- And attention to what we are communicating is limited. Most people don’t follow science news – I fact only 13 percent say they do, down from 20 percent in 1996. And, when you think about those people who are writing about science in major publications across the country, that number continues to dwindle. Just a couple weeks ago I hear the number may only be 5 fulltime science writers in major media. So, the odds are against us. If the few editors make decisions about our stories which I’m told happens in about 5 seconds, then how do we compete. Well, let’s take a look at how art might impact whether or not we are communicating with others.
- It’s been said that a picture is worth a thousand words and it is true that photos do speak. The importance of images to human thought and behavior cannot be overstated. Nearly half of the part of the brain that handles higher-order functioning (senses, movement, reasoning) is devoted to various parts of the visual process. As such, vision is widely regarded as the pre-eminent sense, requiring much of our cognitive ability.
- Andvisual images are so powerful that they stick with us. Research has shown that people have a great capacity to learn and recall visual information. For example, people were shown more than 2,500 pictures for 10 seconds each and were correctly able to identify the same pictures three days later with 90% accuracy.
- But even though we know the value of photos, the challenge is selecting the best images to go with our stories and publications. If we are lucky, we can make the choice between more dramatic captivating images that draw reader interest, or the more informative pictures that explain what’s in the text. Sometimes sidebars are used that show scientist doing interesting things or other attention grabbing measures. Well, according to research, if given the choice, opt for images that illustrate what you are trying to explain in the text, if you want people to better understand what you are telling them.
- According to a study by Harp and Mayer on the science of learning, what they called “seductive details” or images that were simply added to grab readers attention rather than support or elaborate on the text, actually caused greater misunderstanding of the text. In fact images that had no visuals with them were better understood and remembered than were the ones that had the attention grabbing photos. Right now you are spending more time focusing on Brad and George than you are on me.
- Eye-tracking research shows that news consumers navigate differently through visual and written information when its in print versus on the Web. Readers of printed pages view images first, then read words. When online, readers scan words first and then look at the pictures. So, if people pay more attention to the text on websites, do they retain more information?
- If you google climate change images, you find most are similar to the one above. Howver, we know that people like stories about other people. If we want to attract people’s attention on topics like climate change, biofuels, nanotechnology, we need to tell the stories as these issues relate to people.
- Wouldn’t you agree?
- So, when you want to communicate to others think visuals that explain and support the text. Gratuitous images may actually distract from the message and sidebars that take readers down different paths also detract from understanding.Tell stories, don’t just impart information, when you write use sensory words that help activate more of the brain and enrich your writing. People like stories about other people, so try to make the information you relay about people.
- So now that we’ve considered the art, let’s talk a little about the science and particularly I want to focus on the science of science communication. When faculty and others say that the research speaks for itself, they are wrong. Data does not speak. And, when presented as simply facts, can actually be misunderstood and polarizing.
- Many times issues do become polarized and I’ll talk more about how that happens, but I think it is important to note that are almost any given issue, most people are not on either extreme. For example, they estimate that only about 10-15 percent of folks have totally made up their minds on the issue. That means, that most folks are still open to information and those are the people we should target with information.
- Others would say that is the media’s fault and media bias plays a role in whether people understand the science. In this study, researchers examined newspaper coverage of climate change, comparing nearly 800 opeds and letters to the editor over a two-year period. The opeds mirrored national public opinion polls on the topic as about 73% of the articles supported the belief in climate change (roughly about 71% of Americans believe there is solid evidence earth is warming, 2008).
- 43 percent of articles were written by journalists/editorial staff28 percent were written by citizensLess than 5 % were written by scientists (they are relatively absent from the debate)4.68 scientists3.64 academic non-scientists
- Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest.
- “People endorse positions that reinforce their connection to others with whom they share important commitments.”
- Despite the concerns, the majority of people do trust scientists – about 71% which is ironic as that equals the public that also believes in climate change. That statistic however changes when scientists cross the line if you will. People are very happy to have scientists explain science to them. They do not however want the same scientists to tell them what to do with that information. This emphasizes the value of the unbiased nature of our information. When it appears to cross he line, we may be eroding the trust that the public has in our science and information.
- So, let ‘s bring this discussion to a close. We know that people trust scientists and largely the same goes for universities. In order to continue to communicate effectively with folks we need to be transparent. Let them know who is funding our research and how we protect the integrity of the science. Admit that there are things we don’t know, that there are other options and be clear about both the benefits and risks.It is also increasingly important that we consider the values of our audience. Where we can we need to point to common ground and that we in academia also hold to many of the same values.
- We also need to see a variety of views and put them out there. Collaborating with stakeholders may also give our research greater depth and applicability. We are doing greater on-farm research trials, providing real down to earth experiments and data. And we need to seek feedback. Comiunication is not a one way street and if we want people to hear us, we need to hear them.Thanks for attending my presentation today, I hope that these thoughts are helpful and bring attention to the fact that we as communicators have great challenges in communicating to others. Thanks!