science communication | Jean Goodwin

Browsing All posts tagged under »science communication«

Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates

December 3, 2013

Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists.

“Editors’ Note” [to theme issue on science communication ethics].

October 1, 2012

Why we need to be studying the ethics of science communication

Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University, June 1-2, 2012

July 26, 2012

41 papers at the intersection of expertise, civic controversies, and communication.

Lippmann, the indispensable opposition

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.

What is ‘responsible advocacy’ in science? Good advice.

July 14, 2012

"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.

Good reasons for trusting climate science communication

July 14, 2012

Scientists can earn trust--but only by making themselves vulnerable.

Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts

July 14, 2012

Experts have methods for earning the trust of lay audiences--but using their authority is costly. I explain how.

Dilemmas of expertise in sustainable agriculture

July 14, 2012

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?

The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the manufacture of consensus

July 14, 2012

"Consensus" as the strategy selected by scientists associated with the IPCC--a poor rhetorical choice.

Maslin v. Morano

July 14, 2012

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.