\n This grant pioneered an iterative research-practice partnership between filmmakers that create science content (Science Communication Lab) and social scientists studying the science of science communication (University of Wisconsin - Madison). Despite several calls for increased collaboration between science communication practitioners and researchers, such partnerships have remained rare. This is partly a function of limited funding available for such work, and partly based on few blueprints being available for replicating or even scaling up such efforts. As a result, many of our group's approaches and experiences while scaling up such a partnership will provide important blueprints for future collaborations among social scientists and communication professionals. The teams faced unique challenges in balancing the creative process involved in filmmaking with the need for data-driven studies to achieve measurable outcomes. The emerging study represents a fruition of true collaboration in that teams from differing areas of expertise were able to learn from the other and tailor their workflows to achieve a common goal. Consequently, the innovations around process as well as the ultimate results represent a furthering of knowledge around science communication for both practitioners and researchers, but also an appreciation among all partners for seeing the research and practice of effective science communication as in service to and benefiting one another. In online survey experiments using film clips, we measured how American audiences responded to different representations of scientists as well as different framings of a science topic. We also examined how different clips from the documentary film about CRISPR and gene editing, Human Nature, impacted the audience's sense of narrative transportation and character identification. Across all audiences, people rated being highly engaged while watching the documentary clips. Open-ended responses also showed that the majority of people said they enjoyed watching the films, had learned a lot, and appreciated being part of the study. These responses further indicate the power of film as an effective method for communicating science to a wide range of publics. Our data also indicate that for Black audiences, seeing a Black scientist and main character led to greater knowledge gains about the topic of CRISPR and gene editing. However, our findings also suggest that dominant cultural stereotypes and implicitly racial attitudes remain in public perceptions of scientists. Our preliminary data indicate that Black women scientists are perceived to be less credible than their white and male counterparts. These findings make a strong case for further study and imply a need for more public representation of scientists from intersectional and marginalized backgrounds to counter existing stereotypes. The tool we developed, which intersperses question prompts throughout the video, allows for an interactive viewing experience while also serving as a tool for real-world data collection on viewer responses. This tool serves as a useful prototype for communication professionals and researchers, as well as the educational community.
\n\t\t\t\t \tLast Modified: 05/01/2023
\n\t\t\t\t\tModified by: Dietram A Scheufele
The purpose of this project was to explore ways in which our society can debate the important political, regulatory, and moral questions raised by modern science, while avoiding ideological or value-based divisions between different publics that can hinder responsible innovation in a host of areas, ranging from medicine to military. As our project progressed, the COVID-19 pandemic provided a powerful illustration of the value and urgency of this kind of scholarship, as it demonstrated the societal consequences we incur when subsets of the population are unable or unwilling to cooperate in response to emergent risks. To ensure responsible innovation and effective democratic decision-making about the future of high-impact areas of science and technology, we need to examine how we can bring conflicted groups together to engage in “good-faith” discussions that are scaffolded by mutual acknowledgment of the best available scientific evidence.
\nWithin this broad and urgent context, our project involved two main research activities: (1) Synthesizing and examining existing literature about alleged “crises” of public opinion regarding science, particularly misinformation and mistrust, which are often implicated in discussions of intergroup conflict over science issues, and (2) Empirically testing the relative efficacy of interventions that could theoretically reduce barriers to successful intergroup interaction about science. Across both of these major workstreams, our research has yielded conceptual and empirical insights that will be valuable for social scientists, policy actors, and practitioners. Concretely, practitioners who may be interested in our results include science and risk communicators, public health professionals, and organizations that are actively designing and fielding science engagement initiatives with diverse publics.
\nKey outcomes of our work include the following:
\nFirst, we have produced a series of critical essays, published in various peer-reviewed journals (such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) as well as magazines (such as American Scientist), examining existing scholarship and action on misinformation and mistrust in science. In these essays, we have argued for more nuanced conceptualizations of “trust in science,” as well as \"misinformation\" and \"disinformation,\" especially when scientific evidence is rapidly shifting (as was the case during COVID-19). We have offered conceptual frameworks to begin addressing our concerns, as well as revised research agendas outlining productive pathways forward.
\nSecond, we conducted a series of “intervention” experiments. The first two were designed to understand why the mere anticipation of discussing scientific issues can sometimes induce “aversion” in people, essentially causing them to avoid joining or expressing themselves. Overall, we found that it is possible to set expectations for science discussions in ways that are theoretically useful for deliberation. Telling people one (or both) of the following things before the discussion begins can foster greater participation, self-expression, or positive beliefs about people who disagree: (a) that members of the discussion will be expected to express and justify their opinions, and (b) that the discussion topic and environment is characterized by people grappling with their own beliefs. In our final experiment, we hypothesized that extant efforts by the WHO and the CDC to correct misperceptions about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would do \"collateral damage\" to other science attitudes. Ultimately, we found support for the \"collateral damage effect,” thereby demonstrating that some misinformation interventions which are intended to mitigate polarization through increased belief accuracy can sometimes have unintended consequences. We therefore strongly recommend more research into the possible adverse effects of various misinformation interventions before disseminating these “treatments.”
\nGenerally, the outcomes of this project will encourage more focused and effective research on misinformation and mistrust in science, and, in so doing, will contribute to the broader project of bridging societal divides surrounding science. Further, our empirical insights about audience aversion to conflict-laden science discussions can inform both the structure and content of real-world public engagement exercises in ways that could overcome the common problem of biased participation (in which only the most dogmatic or the least conflict-averse individuals “show up” and “speak up”).
\nTo increase impact, our results have been disseminated widely via publications, conference presentations, and educational materials within university coursework. Our project has also directly informed the PIs’ work advising groups like the NASEM, to name just one example, on more effective infrastructures for engaging publics on controversial technologies from climate change to CRISPR. Further, although this project has ended, we are continuing all of our key research areas via a grant-funded Civic Science Fellowship with the John Templeton Foundation (which stemmed directly from this original award). We have also established infrastructure at the University of Wisconsin – Madison for ongoing survey research that will address the broader social scientific question of how individuals in polarized environments engage with information and other people on pressing political and scientific issues, and how we can harness the science of science communication to produce more productive and constructive policy debates about emerging science.
\n\t\t\t\t \tLast Modified: 08/02/2022
\n\t\t\t\t\tModified by: Dietram A Scheufele