The Center for Critical Public Health had the pleasure of sponsoring Vaishnavi Kurupath as a 2022 Summer Intern. She was tasked with conducting a narrative literature review on Science Communication for the CCPH. Vaishnavi is currently a senior at American High School in Fremont, California, and interested in studying intersectional approaches to public policy in college next year. The images in this post are adapted from a presentation on science communication that she created during her internship.
Modern media and entertainment have been saturated with pandemic-related content; from news articles to reality TV shows, the subject never seems to leave us. The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant challenges, but there is also much to learn from this situation, especially in how it was handled and introduced. Specifically, the chaos and misunderstandings of the “early age” of the pandemic revealed shortcomings in how the government and scientists communicate with the public. In other instances, appropriate measures were taken by authority figures and institutions that demonstrated effective science communication. Science communication, as an area of study, is expanding; and the handling of the pandemic has shined a light on some important features.
Effective science communication revolves around the audience. This is not to say that the audience is the sole star of the show, but the qualities and identities of the audience matter significantly in how messages are received. Traditionally, science communication operated in a “deficit model,” where scientists relayed their message in a one-way stream of communication. However, as time progressed, a two-way model became preferred; this allowed the audience to engage with the information and better process it. During the pandemic, information around COVID-19 was disseminated through many forms of media, notably social media; a lack of consistency led to lots of misinformation being propagated about the science and social effects of the disease. Many authorities and scientists failed to account for the diversity of the American public and how certain groups have had a historically negative relationship with health officials and public health campaigns. Their mistrust was countered with claims of ignorance rather than a sense of understanding or empathy. To improve the channeling of information, scientists must recognize a clear audience or number of audiences and understand the cultural and social contexts in which their audience will process the information. Thus, messaging has to be tailored to the sensitivity of different target audiences.
Apart from the audience, how the information is communicated is integral to the effectiveness of the communication. Many of the messages officials sent out to the public regarding masks and social distancing were confusing because they were communicated as definitive. For example, the CDC director Rachelle Walensky had claimed in a March 29 interview that “vaccinated people did not carry the virus,” an incorrect statement that many researchers criticized her for and she later had to retract. In this case and others, as the public was not informed of the tendency of information within science to change and adapt, many lost trust within the information. Here, another pillar of science communication stands missing: researchers and scientists must communicate information with explicit acknowledgement of the limitations of their information. To go a step further, preceding their messaging with information regarding scientific principles and the nature of the research may ease communication altogether.
Effective science communication is also heralded by clarity, and the messaging, regardless of the audience, must meet this standard. A strong example of this emerged within a Canadian indigenous public health organization’s creation of products to share information with local indigenous communities on their heightened risk of influenza. Instead of utilizing traditional methods of dissemination, their team created a board game to help facilitate conversation amongst the members of the community.
The organization’s team recognized that indigenous knowledge has historically been communicated orally; so, they altered their mode of communication to personalize the message. Their efforts were a success, and the project was evidence of the significance of the delivery of a message.
While the pandemic demonstrated where effective science communication was lacking, it also demonstrated where it succeeded. The government was able to reach out to the population by focusing grants and funding within programs that tackled issues, such as youth mental health and the safety of frontline workers. They appealed to their audiences by displaying empathy and understanding about the social effects of the virus. In doing so, communicating to the public about the pandemic became easier, as the issue had become personal to both the scientists and non-scientists. Empathy and human connection are essential tools for science communication; when an issue is closer to the hearts of the target audience, it is much easier to listen and comprehend given information.
Like any field of science, science communication is always changing; however, certain principles persist. As political and social environments change, how we communicate science will also change. The pandemic posed a great challenge to society and thus helped us recognize more about the disconnect between the information we obtain through research and the real-life applications of this information. Science communication is the bridge over that disconnect. As we grow and develop this field, that disconnect will not disappear; hopefully though, the bridge will grow stronger and stabler, helping us prepare effectively for the larger challenges awaiting us in the future.
- Science Communication in the Age of COVID-19 - October 5, 2022
