Communicating Science in Times of Crisis. Группа авторов
of the chapters focuses on events and processes facing long into the future. In meeting this challenge, these volumes will feature a line of analysis that connects communication science issues, public policy, education, and the pandemic into a coherent narrative.
The authors created unique perspectives from which to portray these contexts and their accompanying challenges. Each chapter signifies the most up-to-date research in these areas with insightful ideas of where future research and best practices should proceed in the future. Like other recent scholarly books we have published (O’Hair, 2018; O’Hair & O’Hair, 2020), original research findings are offered from ongoing research programs, and in other chapters, unique frameworks and models are presented that unpack constituent elements of complex processes, and “casting them into discernable designs worthy of consideration by researchers, practitioners, and policy makers” (O’Hair, 2018, p. 4). The importance of this work is its ability to bring together the best scholarship in science communication research.
Just as importantly, this book is envisioned to serve as ignition for future work in science communication and to serve as a text for an increasing number of college courses in science communication. It is hoped that this book will nurture additional interest in many types of communication studies and offer connections between communication research and others engaged in science and educational contexts.
Each chapter was commissioned and reviewed with the ensuing guidelines in mind:
Significant issue/problem?
Theoretical grounding?
Recent exemplars included?
Practical and impactful implications?
Implications (going forward)?
New directions offered?
Unique contribution to science communication research?
Communicating Science in Times of Crisis: COVID-19 Pandemic is intended for multiple audiences, with the primary audiences being those quite familiar to scholarly publishers and academic researchers. The book should attract interest among communication scholars and researchers focusing on science communication. In addition, it is hoped that seminars in science communication, crisis management, policy management, leadership studies, and even medicine will find the book attractive as a primary or secondary text. A third audience is likely to be found in main campus libraries and public libraries as well as libraries situated at health sciences centers. This project follows in the footsteps of other scholarly books, which have become a vital part of the academic and professional contributions of the communication disciplines. The chapters contained herein offer the opportunity to integrate ideas that are on the vanguard of science communication. The chapters throughout the book are organized through four parts: (a) conceptualizing communication science and COVID-19, (b) promoting health and well-being, (c) advancing models of information and media, (d) and examining policy and leadership. These chapters are employed as part of the overall strategy we lay out in offering an approach for using communication science more effectively during times of crisis, in particular the pandemic of COVID-19.
In the following sections of this chapter, we develop a sketch of three interlocking concepts that facilitate a path for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. We start with a discussion about the essential nature of science communication and the known and unknown complexities of moving science into the public realm where it can be leveraged. In a following section, we confront an inescapable truth of human society—pandemics. It is here that we peel back the veneer of dangerous illnesses that have always confronted our societies and those that in recent times have served as the harbinger of what we confront today and what will likely be in future generations. The section that follows is meant to highlight how communication science can serve as a strategy for mitigating the horrendous effects of COVID-19 and perhaps other viruses confronting us in the future.
The Essential Nature of Science Communication
Conceptualizations of processes termed science have been part of our vocabulary for hundreds of years. Science has had an intermittent relationship with the public—sometimes exalted (moon landings polio vaccine, etc.), sometimes suspicious or evil (wartime gases, oversized mistakes like Three Mile Island) and all too frequently those with mixed reviews (vaccines, weight control treatment, etc.). Another way of thinking about science is through considerations of analyses focusing on elements of the scientific process. One of the more abstract but elegant descriptions of science is “a way of knowing” (McComas & Nouri, 2016, p. 560). The processes for generating science are generally thought to include notions that science is not entirely objective, is socially embedded, is empirically based, and cannot answer all questions (Alshamrani, 2008). One generalization that could be made about science is that it has had a long history of advancing the efforts of humans, society, medicine, engineering, and technology. Most of these effects have been heralded by those who understand them and benefitted from them.
It might be useful to conclude this section with broader thoughts about the essential nature of science. Littlefield (this book) advances important arguments supporting the historically close relationship between science and public policy. Examples abound demonstrating how federal policymakers have partnered with scientific organization in order to protect citizens from harm and even develop ways to promote their well-being (Littlefield). The chapter from Childress and Clark (this book) are equally robust in their perspective that science and public policy should enjoy a productive future together. We feel comfortable in borrowing an exemplar quote from the chapter by Ivanov and Parker (this book). The quote comes from Dr. Steven Stack, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Public Health. Dr. Stack, a scientist, at a public news conference is exhorting the need for science to guide us out of the COVID-19 pandemic:
One point I want to emphasize is that it’s not politics if you have President Trump [Republican] and Governor Beshear [Democrat] making the same recommendations. It’s not politics. This is science. If we work together through this, we can succeed.
(Kentucky.gov, 2020, para. 8, italics added for emphasis)
What Is Science Without Communication?
Science Is Not an Alternative Fact!
(Yard sign during Biden–Trump presidential campaign, 2020)
Generating good science is a worthy goal among people who want to develop new ideas and processes that are exciting and novel, but the real value lies in science being applied in circumstances or contexts that can elevate conditions and states in the status quo. Science has limited value if it is not used, if it is not communicated to others. Unfortunately, there are too many scientists who feel they are either unskillful at communicating their science to others or believe communicating scientific findings is someone else’s job. These are two very serious concerns with the former being a condition of fear of being misunderstood and the latter being a mindset of misplaced responsibility. Regardless of which motivation is at work, science is being marginalized when it is not communicated effectively. We are particularly drawn to a passage in the Hester, Ivanov, and Parker chapter in this book that states “we have a shared responsibility to proliferate, effectively communicate, and disseminate scientific information that reduces risks for the common good of individuals in our families, communities and across the world.” If not communicated, is it really science?
A separate issue is one that ascribes further responsibility to scientists in their role as communicators. Freedman and colleagues (2020) contended that scientists need to be mindful about recent interest in scientific work regarding the virus and “use this opportunity to improve scientific communication and transparency as a means to improving our society … there remains an unmistakable sense that society needs science” (p. 4). Through what communication channel such as television, print, or social media modalities and through which conceptual and political lens a person is focused on are highly influential in how science information is processed. The chapter by Muhamed and Merle (this book) makes clear that situation and contextual properties of scientific messages are influential in