October 1, 2012
Why we need to be studying the ethics of science communication
July 26, 2012
41 papers at the intersection of expertise, civic controversies, and communication.
July 14, 2012
Lippmann's thoroughgoing pessimism may lead us to a better understanding of the role of communication in public deliberations between scientists and citizens.
"Responsible" advocacy is still advocacy. To be good, it should be zealous. But zeal undermines scientific authority. So advising, not advocating, should be the speech act of choice.
Scientists can earn trust--but only by making themselves vulnerable.
Experts have methods for earning the trust of lay audiences--but using their authority is costly. I explain how.
What do four eminent experts in sustainable agriculture think of their roles in policy-making? And what communication strategies do they understand they have to fulfill those roles?
"Consensus" as the strategy selected by scientists associated with the IPCC--a poor rhetorical choice.
In a close textual analysis of a short debate, I show how an outstanding scientist is unable to simultaneously exert his authority and to advocate effectively--especially when up against an outstanding advocate on the other side.
Even under favorable conditions, evidence-based technical arguments become transformed into appeals to expert authority when they enter the public sphere.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.