We've been talking in class (and on your quizzes) about how the values of journalism don't always match up with the values of science (or maybe even of technology or policy).  A great piece over at the Colombia Journalism Review reflects exactly on that problem.

Environmental and Science Journalists quoted in the piece noted that their coverage of renewable energy-related issues tends to follow a pattern:  first reporters hype the energy source as a savior to many of our energy problems.  Then, in stage two, the gild falls off the lily and the reporters do stories noting everything that is wrong with the energy source or technology.  Finally, in stage three, "realism sets in," and journalists try to understand the energy source or technology in a deeper or meaningful way.

These reporters talk frankly about how they've covered everything from wind to electric cars.  They're cognizant of the media's failures in covering energy, and so it makes for an interesting read.

Here are some great answers, taken from your second reading quizzes, to the following questions:

1.    Describe the transmission model of communication, and define its strengths and weaknesses.

The transmission model is the simple mode of a "sender" sending a "message" to a "receiver."  In this model, it is a one way process:

This model does well at describing how many people (definitely scientists) think about communication.  It is simple and straightforward.  It concentrates on the message, emphasizing that it should be clear and easy to understand.  But there is nothing in the model to account for such things as the context the message is being sent in or the ideals, preconceptions, interests, and knowledge of the sender or receiver. 

2.     Provide a more complicated model of communication, and explain why it is better than the transmission model.

  

This model is better because the method of communication, feedback, and the audience type are specified.  Analysis of this model can consider effectiveness/importance of more factors than the transmission model.

Another possible answer:  the ritual model.  The ritual model emphasizes the surroundings, similar to watching a theatrical performance.  It has 5 components:  act, stage, agent, agency, and purpose.  This model defines the context in more detail than the transmission model.  It also creates multiple paths of communication (it is not one way).

3.     What “news values” are typically supported by science journalists (name and describe at least 4)?

fascination value

trustworthiness

timeliness

importance of the story to society/the reader

natural audience size of the story

correctness/accuracy

"newsiness" 

4.     How might these news values conflict with the values of science?

A major conflict has to do with fascination.  Sometimes important research is a little dry.  Scientific research would have to be "heart-pumping" to be published.  Most scientific breakthroughs also don't have a large audience.

Scientists are also concerned about how the news will affect their reputation and credibility.  They may wonder if it is actually their obligation to report their work.  Public perception of the science itself can also have an influence on the amount of funding the research gets.

5.     Describe the tension between views of the internet as enabling forms of open and democratic science communication and views that suggest that the internet further enables vested or bureaucratic interests to more tightly manage science communication.

While some people believe the internet is an open and democratic source for science communication, there are others who disagree and point to information embargoes, such as password protected sites and subscriptions.  These embargoes can control science communication in this way.  Most people are forced to get information on the latest scientific news from secondhand sources such as news reports and blogs. In this way, the internet has not done as much to make scientific information more widely available.

Hi everyone!  I just finished catching up on all of your blogs and wanted to note a few things.

First, the quality of the posting has made a dramatic jump.  Several of you have found your blogging "voices" and seem to be getting much more comfortable with the form.  Well done!  Those of you who have been doing well all along continue to do well, and are trying new forms of address and engagement in your writing, which is great.

A small number of you have done a little backsliding and have disappeared from your blog.

Let me encourage you, if you've stepped away from your blog for a while, to return to it. I know some of you are discouraged by your first-period evaluations; some of you are busy with other projects; and some of you may just be losing steam at this point in the semester.  But we have a few weeks until our March 23 evaluation, which is plenty of time to turn things around and do very well on the next grading period.

Continue to keep up your quality, but also think some about quantity.  I'm not assigning particular blog topics you have to write about, which means you have to write about things that interest you.  Short, newsy posts are okay occasionally, but pair these with longer, more reflective or interpretive posts, too.  But try to post regularly.

You're doing great work.  This is a new project and not always an easy project, but hang in there, show up, and you'll see the results you want.  Don't be afraid to change things up and try new things--you have an immediate feedback mechanism (your commenters and me) that will let you know how things are going.

Nice work, everyone!

I'm just back from the Western States Communication Association conference (held, luckily for me, in beautiful Monterey, California).  I mostly participate in the Environmental Communication interest group there, and as always, there were a number of panels and presentations focusing on climate change communication.

My impression of a lot of the scholar and practitioners working in the field is that they are tired of having the discussions about the science of climate change--about whether or not the climate change we're seeing is primarily being caused by humans--and instead have moved past that very difficult debate to looking at policy actions.  They're tired of the work of trying to convince people that climate change is "real."

In other words, let's quit worrying quite so much about trying to persuade the unpersuadable and instead just talk about what to do next.  In essence, they seem to be arguing we should do an end-run around the science-related aspects of climate change, which are mired down in political allegiances, personal values, and human emotion.

This largely makes sense to me.  If most Americans believe climate change is happening (and polls show they do--they just don't agree on what's causing it, or on its severity) and if we can waste a whole lot of energy trying to teach people the science of climate change and they still might not change their minds, why do it?

I'm not saying climate science isn't important, or that science literacy isn't important, but why not just go straight to talking about what to do about it?  Why not talk about health effects, or energy independence, or living lives in a pleasanter world?

For example, a report on a new study shows that if you tell people about climate change and indicate it's going to be very severe, very dire, they are less likely to believe climate change is really happening, primarily because it doesn't jive with their believe that the world is just, and that things end up working out in the end.

The just world belief is a hard thing to change.  So why try?  Why not go straight to what's to be done?

This is kind of what the Monterey Bay Aquarium's new climate change exhibit is doing, by the way.  There's not much about climate science or meteorology in there--just a lot of cool, mod-designed posters and illustrations of rising sea levels, and an opportunity to write your congressperson, electronically at a kiosk, right there.  And about which energy sources might be key to solving the problem.  You don't feel bogged down in trying to understand climate modeling, but you do get a sense of hey, this is where we are, and this is where we need to go.  Seemed effective--not dire, not heavy-handed, but serious and interesting--to me.

What do you guys think?  Any problem with leaving communication of the science of climate change behind?

Most of you know that Spain is a world leader in wind energy production.  ecogeek.org reports that on January 6, Spain had 75% of its electricity produced by wind.  Even given that it may have been an ideal day, that's a big number.  You can check out the article here.

This brief piece was in the Chronicle of Higher Education today.  It reminded me of our discussion last night about whether or not there is something called "science" that exists outside the disciplines or institutions of science (the curiosity of a child?  an ideal situation on another planet?).

Look at how this author (a scientist) describes science, and the way it is done or performed:

Total Fail:  It Happens
By Heather M. Whitney

Be careful what you wish for. The other day, my husband, who is also in science, and I were talking about what qualities of a scientist we hope to model for our students as a part of our everyday interactions with them. High on our list was the ability to acknowledge that sometimes we’re not always at the top of our game. We don’t go around describing nature in perfect equations. Science, like all disciplines, is the pursuit of characterizing and understanding the as-of-yet unknown. It’s a process, not a life of looking up answers in a solutions manual.

Guess what happened the very next day in class? I was teaching my general physics course, covering (what I think to be) a very fascinating study in where an electron will be as it approaches a negatively charged sphere, at the point when the velocity is half its original value. (Trust me, it really is interesting.) On the board I modeled the problem solving approach for the students, talking about conservation of energy and how it motivated the solution. I came to next-to the-last step of the solution, the mathematical equivalent to a joke’s setup for the punchline. And it was gone. I mean, GONE. For whatever reason, I completely lost track of what to do. My notes were no help, because of course the final steps were crystal clear during my prep and I did not feel the need to write them out. After all, this is the fourth time around I’ve taught this course, right?

There were about ten minutes to go in class. I swallowed my pride and made the decision to end class a bit early, with the promise of opening up the next with the finished solution. There were of course many options I could have taken, such as letting the students work in groups to finish up the solution and then comparing options as a class. In my best moments, I would have even created a clicker question on the fly so that students could vote for which proposed solution was the “best.”

But I didn’t. At the time, I felt it was best to just leave it and come back to it. And that’s what happens in the life of a real scientist. Sometimes we get stuck. We don’t know what steps to next take and we leave the problem for a bit – get a cup of coffee, stare out the window, read some email. Sometimes we even lay problems aside for days (or weeks or years!) Then we come back to the problem and attack it some more.

Two days after, the next class period, I had a brief discussion with my students about how that situation mirrored what often happens in real life. We want to model for our students what we think is the best of being in our field – the beautiful solution to a problem. But we need to also model for them how to handle challenges, and part of that is maintaining a healthy bit of humility.

Hey, everyone.  Matt Nisbet (whose work on framing we've read in class) is teaching a similar course to ours at American University, and he had his students generate a list of blogs they refer to regularly for information.  You should definitely check out the list (and also those recommended in the comments) and see if there are any you could begin reading and commenting on.  You might even leave your own blog's .url as you comment....