Scientists' Perceptions of Communicating During Crises

Abstract:

To further our understanding of how to enhance student science and risk communication skills in natural hazards and earth science courses, we conducted a pilot study to assess the different perceptions of expert scientists and risk communication practitioners versus the perceptions of students. These differences will be used to identify expert views on best practice, and improve the teaching of communication skills at the University level. In this pilot study, a perceptions questionnaire was developed and validated. Within this, respondents (geoscientists, engineers, and emergency managers; n=44) were asked to determine their agreement with the use and effectiveness of specific communication strategies (within the first 72 hours after a devastating earthquake) when communicating to the public. In terms of strategies and information to the public, the respondents were mostly in agreement, but there were several statements which elicited large differences between expert responses: 1) the role and purpose of the scientific communication during crises (to persuade people to care, to provide advice, to empower people to take action); 2) the scientist’s delivery (showing the scientists emotions and enthusiasm for scientific concepts they are discussing); and 3) the amount of data that is discussed (being comprehensive versus ‘only the important’ data). The most disagreed upon dimension was related to whether to disclose any political influence on the communication. Additionally, scientists identified that being an effective communicator was an important part of their job, and agreed that it is important to practice these skills. Respondents generally indicated that while scientists should be accountable for the science advice provided, they should not be held liable.