Design vs. Doubt: Design Thinking + Science Communication - SXSW 2016 - Jen Briselli
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes388 views
The document discusses the challenges of science communication, emphasizing that better education and facts alone do not guarantee changes in attitudes due to identity-protective cognition. It highlights the importance of designing messages that resonate with different audience values to effectively address issues like climate change and vaccination. Framing communications in identity-affirming ways can help mitigate resistance and polarization among various social groups.
Design vs. Doubt: Design Thinking + Science Communication - SXSW 2016 - Jen Briselli
- 1. Design vs. Doubt: Design Thinking + Science Communication Jennifer Briselli @jbriselli #DTSciComm
- 2. the more things change…
- 3. 1923
- 4. 2016
- 5. 1902
- 6. 2016
- 7. 2006
- 8. 2016
- 9. the more they stay the same. the more things change…
- 10. human beings are still human.
- 11. “” The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov
- 13. so, the problem with science communication must be… people are in denial people are misinformed people are irrational the problem is… prove scientific consensus, out-reason them all! more facts! better education! science literacy! let’s just ignore them… maybe they’ll disappear.
- 14. …that’s not how it works.
- 15. Denial?
- 17. 24 reject global warming
- 21. hierarchical egalitarian communitarianindividualist gun control HPV vaccine compulsory health measures evolution climate change nuclear power abortion
- 22. “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus” Fictitious “experts” & two versions of each expert’s article
- 23. Asked participants: “Is this a knowledgeable and credible expert on…” respondents who agree the author is an expert:
- 24. People generally trust science; but our perceptions of scientific expertise and policy implications are colored by our values. Denial
- 25. Misinformation?
- 26. “How much risk do you think climate change poses?” perceived risk science literacy egalitarian communitarian hierarchical individualist Prediction: better informed more agreement with consensus
- 27. “How much risk do you think climate change poses?” perceived risk science literacy egalitarian communitarian hierarchical individualist Result: for some, better educated more polarized views opposing consensus
- 28. Overcoming a knowledge deficit or debunking misinformation doesn’t guarantee a change in attitudes or behavior. Misinformation
- 29. Irrational?
- 30. “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” Rep. Paul Broun R-GA & member the House Science Committee 2007-2015
- 33. There is far too much information in the world for a human to process, so we offload some of that processing through identity-protective (“cultural”) cognition which prompts us to align our perceptions with trusted or symbolic sources within our own social in-groups
- 35. Rationality ≠ accuracy. Identity-protective cognition is perfectly rational. It helps us make sense of the world, though it leads to errant perceptions of science & risk. Irrational
- 36. maybe this is a rhetoric design problem
- 38. “” Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. Herbert Simon
- 43. how do you design for people who don’t already agree with you?
- 45. “” Wherever there is design, there is rhetoric. Kenneth Burke
- 49. communitarianindividualist Interference from outsiders limits personal freedom. Collective assistance and welfare structures hold us back. Freedom and competition lead to human resourcefulness and innovation. People should fend for themselves and leave others alone. Human interaction and compassion are important. People have a responsibility to take care of each other. Collaboration and solidarity make strong, safe communities. Everyone should be willing to both help and depend on others.
- 50. hierarchical egalitarian It’s ok to acknowledge and even emphasize differences. It’s ok to distribute wealth and duty according to class or expertise. Roles should be differentiated in a traditional manner. Policy and social conventions should support traditional hierarchies and stability. Discrimination is harmful. Everyone deserves equal representation in duty and fair distribution of wealth. Everyone should have access; non-traditional roles are ok. Everyone should be allowed to participate; diversity is good.
- 51. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian gun control HPV vaccine compulsory health measures evolution climate change nuclear power abortion Perceived as Risks
- 55. ✓
- 56. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian Affirming Threatening harsh criticism of traditional roles & industry unrestricted competition, threats to social supports interference, constraints on personal freedoms denial of participation, access, status stability, authority, expertise collaboration, community, stewardship resourcefulness, independence, privacy equality, access, participation
- 57. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian Harsh criticism of traditional roles & industry Unrestricted competition, threats to social supports Interference, constraints on personal freedoms Denial of participation, access, status Avoid:
- 58. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian stability, authority, expertise collaboration, community, stewardship resourcefulness, independence, privacy equality, access, participation Highlight:
- 59. case study: vaccination Why should I? communitarian & egalitarian Why would I? hierarchical & individualist Why wouldn’t I? debunking & de-biasing Will I? choice
- 60. What resonated most? “” The part about vaccines being a _________. I never thought about it that way.
- 61. ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓
- 63. One More Study: Participants read an editorial story with specific framing: anti-pollution or geo-engineering. Then, they all read the same neutral, statistics-based article about climate change.
- 64. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian “Climate change is a very real threat to our planet and our way of life!” “Climate change isn’t a thing.” Usually:
- 65. The anti-pollution priming story accentuated conventional anti-commerce and anti-technology themes. Hierarchical-Individualists find these values threatening; they discounted the statistics in the second article & expressed even stronger climate change denial. The geo-engineering priming story accentuated themes like human ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit overcoming natural limits on commerce. Hierarchical-Individualists find these values affirming; they accepted the statistics in the second article & expressed stronger acceptance of climate change as a threat we should act on.
- 66. Framing climate change messaging with identity-affirming meanings can mitigate resistance & polarization.
- 67. TL;DR
- 69. Judge less, design more.
- 70. Jennifer Briselli Managing Director, Experience Design @jbriselli [email protected] Thank You
Editor's Notes
- #4: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hellandhighschool.html
- #5: http://legendofthedead.blogspot.com/2012/04/alcohol-sex-and-science-legislating.html
- #6: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/anti-vaccination-society-america-correspondence
- #7: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/06/green-our-vaccines-antivaccine-2/ & infowars.com
- #8: http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/images/2007/10/11/
- #9: http://climatedenial.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/climatedenial/2010/11/global-warming-socialist-scam-227x300.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YzE-6liXEGQ/T7KRTKGZMEI/AAAAAAAAFtM/_Yhbv9r-pNY/s640/zzzzzzzzzzHeartland+billboard.png http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/08/12/not-evil-just-completely-insane/
- #11: It’s human nature: whenever there is change, or progress, some folks will resist or fight it.. It’s not ideal but at least it’s predictable & consistent.
- #12: http://marciokenobi.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/isaac-asimov2.jpg
- #13: There is a lot of good work already being done to understand this phenomenon that we call “denial,” though it offers more descriptive accounts of denial from a historical perspective, and less from a cognitive or explanatory perspective. And, we see very little from a prescriptive perspective.
- #14: As designers, we first try to define our problem.. So let’s define this problem. We tend to make 3 assumptions about science communication challenges posed by science denial.
- #15: Let’s explore each of these three assumptions a little more.
- #17: We can prove consensus pretty well.
- #18: But some folks will always focus on this.
- #19: The only study linking MMR vaccines to autism was discredited as fraud and its author, Andrew Wakefield, has lost his medical license.
- #20: Yet, he is still considered a hero in small pockets of anti-vaccine groups– namely because he represents their values.
- #21: The following studies are from the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale, whose work is based on the cultural theory of risk as developed by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky.
- #22: The topics that people view as threatening tend to reflect their cultural values.
- #23: Kahan, Dan M., Jenkins-Smith, Hank and Braman, Donald, Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (February 7, 2010). Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, pp. 147-74, 2011
- #24: Turns out– people assessed expertise based on whether the ‘expert’ expressed the view that aligned with their existing perceptions & values.
- #27: We might expect that when people learn more and understand better, it will bring more of them into consensus about climate change.
- #28: But in reality, many studies show that increased science literacy doesn’t lead to more consensus– in fact it increases polarization on already-polarized topics.
- #30: Can we just ignore people who we deem irrational?
- #31: Not if they’re in congress.
- #32: Or your boss.
- #33: Or your coworkers.
- #38: Not this kind of design.
- #39: This kind of design.
- #40: Some folks are already very good at designing communication and have shared helpful methods for us to do the same. Often it includes an emphasis on compelling narrative & storytelling.
- #41: Some people are already very good at being compelling.
- #43: But we might consider whether people like Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are in some ways preaching to the converted. Who are their fans? Who listens to what they say?
- #45: Rhetoric! Classical, Aristotelian rhetoric– not the “art of lying” as we use the word today. Classical rhetoric is the method of designing communication for a specific audience, based on really understanding that audience on a deep level.
- #46: That’s what’ designers do too!
- #47: Design as a “rhetorical” art = human-centered design.
- #48: We start with empathy. Empathy means understanding the perspective of the people we design for. And most importantly, seeing them as humans, not caricatures.
- #49: Let’s try to empathize with folks who don’t share our values.
- #53: And keep in mind, most people are not extreme in their values– we consider the extremes as way of understanding the model.
- #54: Self reflection– try it.
- #55: Keep in mind– we can develop empathetic understanding of someone and their values without necessarily agreeing with those values. Changing values takes a long time— years, generations maybe. But changing attitudes is more doable— we can achieve attitude and behavior change without changing values– so designers and science communicators must decide what their priority is.
- #56: So how can we keep applying the design process to this challenge? We understand values– how do we deal with it? We try things out.
- #57: More broadly, we know there are certain themes that are particularly affirming and threatening for each set of values.
- #58: If we try to avoid these threatening themes,
- #59: And include these affirming themes, we may be able to reach people we’re trying to reach.
- #60: Case study: interactive informational piece about vaccines comparing vaccination to wearing seat belts. Metaphor can make it easier to include number themes under one unified message (rather than trying to design different messaging for different worldviews, which would be impractical and duplicitous).
- #61: The biggest insight: Different people grabbed onto different things in the messaging– each worldview seemed to resonate with different themes dependent on their values.
- #62: If we imagine applying human-centered design to science communication, we can try this process over and over again– empathizing, defining our goals, trying ideas and seeing how they play out– then refining and repeating.
- #63: This leads to a generally applicable strategy: not an algorithm or recipe, but more equivalent to a set of tools and methods that can be used to create unique recipes as each situation calls for.
- #64: By the way, others continue to test these ideas too: Kahan, Dan M. and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. and Tarantola, Tor and Silva, Carol L and Braman, Donald, Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication (January 9, 2012). Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Sci., 658, 193-222 (2015),
- #69: Remember, you’re designing for other humans. If you approach science communication challenges with human-centered design thinking, you can achieve a lot.