|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||
Interpreting wildland fire ecology begins with a solid understanding of science and how it works, but it often intersects with public policy, economics, environmental aesthetics, and human values. Encouraging public understanding of wildland fire ecology concepts and implications in both environmental and social domains is no easy task. Balancing science, policy, and human values fairly and accurately as a communicator requires solid understanding of not only the content but the manner of presentation.
Issues that pertain to environmental and health issues can be controversial in the eyes of the public, particularly when sensitive values are at stake. The science and policies of wildland fire ecology often pose many difficulties when communicators must inform the public about fire, its effects, and its uses. Techniques for effectively handling sensitive environmental and health issues have emerged as the special communication genre known as risk communication. The concept of risk communication not only addresses quantifiable risk, but also the public's perception of that risk, which may or may not be in sync with the "real" risk (Sandman, 1993; West et al., 1995). For ecological communicators, risk communication is often a matter of interpreting complex scientific issues, and communicating to the public about their potential impacts. The real difficulty in science and risk communication tends to be a lack of common understanding among the lay-public of how science and technology function (Sandman, 1993; West et al., 1995).
Uncertainty in scientific research is intrinsic and generally understood by professional scientists in terms of statistical probabilities, measurement limitations, computer modeling simplifications, etc. Debate over facts, figures, and predictions within the scientific community is not only common but a critical part of the knowledge construction process (Bazerman, 1988; Gross, 1990; Myers, 1990). However, this aspect of the scientific process is not well-known nor understood by the lay-public. Scientists are often expected to quickly and accurately produce definitive answers and solutions. To accept that differences of opinion and uncertainty are inherent within the scientific community is not very palatable, especially when a person may trust his or her health, wealth, and environmental appreciation to the "expert" advice of scientists. Thus, if information appears incomplete or uncertain, the public tends to mistrust it, as well as its source.
The ecological communicator must bridge this gap between the scientific and nonscientific communities and provide a common ground for understanding and trust. The goal of the communicator is to make meaning as clear as possible to foster a more accurate understanding of a risk, and thus more appropriate behaviors regarding that risk.
Ideally, a communicator would like to convince an audience that the information being presented is the most accurate representation of the "truth available." The construction of knowledge in the context of incomplete or uncertain science puts primacy on the rhetorical attributes of communication (Bazerman, 1988; Gross, 1990; Myers, 1990). The structure of the language itself can dramatically affect the way the message is received. Basic principles of such language can be categorized into three main rhetorical concepts: audience, structure, and tone.
Before addressing any risk, a communicator must know his or her audience well. Most often, a specific audience is being targeted. These audiences may range from elementary school students to a group of seasoned politicians or land developers. Knowing the attributes of the audience will dictate what type of message to send, and what type of language to use. Most often the message being sent is meant to persuade the audience in some way (Bazerman, 1988; Gross, 1990; Myers, 1990). A communicator dealing with risk-oriented material most often wishes to persuade the audience that what is being reported is worth knowing, and should be considered important to understand accurately and act upon appropriately. Persuasive messages are a means of gaining an audience's trust and guiding them toward informed decisions.
Interpretation requires streamlining and condensing a large amount of complex information. Most readers or listeners understand and appreciate the synopsis, but may remain leery if information appears to be missing, or facts seem to be misrepresented. Thus, it is critical to inform the audience of significant deletions, alterations, or limitations. Knowing the audience well will help in anticipating how a particular audience may respond to such conditions.
Part of the communicator's job involves translating technical terminology into more understandable language. The level of sophistication of the language used should be appropriate for the intended audience. For most audiences, the communicator should not assume any technical background in the subject. Thus, explanations of even basic scientific terms may be necessary. Some degree of specificity may be lost when converting technical descriptions into more general terms, but it is crucial to keep the audience's frustration level to a minimum with thoughtful word choices.
A communicator must also choose from a seemingly endless array of points to discuss and content to present. Focusing the scope of the topic however, usually with a guiding thesis or main point (recurring message), is an important step toward keeping the material manageable and helping the audience see the communicator's point of view.
A well-organized structure is also imperative in a text, especially when complex new material is being presented. Ideas and concepts should flow together in an orderly fashion. It is helpful to link new information with concepts that are already known by the audience, thus providing a reference point by which the audience can grasp the new concept and connect it with something familiar.
The proper use of transition between unfamiliar and difficult information will also help to foster better comprehension of difficult technical or conceptual content (Brown and Yule, 1983). Consider transitions to be a "road map" for the piece, guiding the audience through unfamiliar territory by referencing familiar information. This may require some overlap and some degree of overt direction within a piece, including statements like "next," "as a result of," "because of this," etc. These kinds of transitions not only guide the audience but help reinforce causal or temporal relationships among the concepts that the communicator wants the audience to understand.
One particular linguistic concept that can be useful for presenting scientific and technical material is called the given/new principle (Brown and Yule, 1983). Information that is not easy to grasp should come only after ample lead-ins describing the context in which the new information sits. New details, nomenclature, and concepts are often preceded by more familiar, and often repeated ideas.
This building of new knowledge on the shoulders of existing knowledge is a powerful tool for communicators to convey new information logically and coherently. Presenting new material only after considerable familiar information has been shared adds tremendous persuasive weight to new theories by placing the information in an established and well-defined sequence of knowledge.
Tone is a stylistic attribute of risk communication that is not necessarily as obvious as the rhetorical issues of audience and structure, but is just as important. This concept is not easy to categorize but generally is a stance toward the audience or an attitude toward the subject matter. When presenting risk-oriented material, an impartial tone and deference to the larger community of scientists, policy makers, and the public should be projected. An ecological communicator should remain objective at all times. If direct reference to a source seems appropriate, then use citations and provide a reference list at the end. This helps to legitimize the message and provide options for further investigation if a reader is interested in obtaining more information.
Using passive voice can also help to place information and events at a distance from the communicator, and focus attention appropriately on the subject itself. An announcement about the subject of a sentence made after a passive verb construction tends to sound like an established and accepted statement, rather than a bold new conjecture (Bazerman, 1988; Myers, 1990). Again this is a desirable effect for a communication style that hinges on a belief in the objective reporting of information in order to gain understanding and acceptance among the audience.
Another quality of effective communications that helps to maintain an objective tone is called "hedging" (Myers, 1990). Essentially, the communicator can choose cautious phrases, such as "this study suggests" or "it appears" to maintain a conservative, objective stance when presenting new ideas. This technique does not reflect hesitancy on the part of the communicator; rather, it has come to be the appropriate tone when presenting a new scientific claim that may not be established as solid fact. Hedging presents a more accurate representation of an issue, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of science (Myers, 1990).
Recognizing and dispelling audience-held misconceptions about an issue requires the communicator to know the characteristics of his or her audience well, to construct the message appropriately for the audience, and to project a proper tone. This is not an easy task, to which many communicators would attest. The misconception should be presented clearly and respectfully, followed by the "new" concept, and why it is more accurate. Explaining why the misconception should be replaced by new information helps reinforce the point and persuade the audience to adopt the new perspective. Fields such as wildland fire ecology often must deal with clashes between science and public perception. Knowing how and why these clashes occur, and how to address them will prove useful in influencing public awareness and decision making.
Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, A.G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Myers, G. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Sandman, P.M. 1993. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
West, B., P.M. Sandman, and M.R. Greenberg. 1995. The Reporter's Environmental Handbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Author: Jeffrey R. Corney