41 papers at the intersection of expertise, civic controversies, and communication.
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.
While Iowa residents reject the term "sustainability" as politically charged, they buy in to many precepts of sustainable agricullture.
Experts have methods for earning the trust of lay audiences--but using their authority is costly. I explain how.
Principal-agent theory can help us understand some of the reasons we may have for distrusting experts--and how that distrust can be addressed.
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?
Theorists use spatial metaphors to emphasize how one proposition follows from another. Practitioners use spatial metaphors to emphasize how people stand by their propositions. Each group can learn from the other.
"Consensus" as the strategy selected by scientists associated with the IPCC--a poor rhetorical choice.
July 26, 2012
0