Making science less sciency: the importance of communicating science effectively to the public
For some of us that work for SANParks, doing our jobs and following the mandate of the Organization can lead to criticism from members of the public on social media and in other forums. Some colleagues have even landed in court because of differing public opinion regarding certain conservation interventions.
To protect biodiversity, SANParks has the tricky and often impossible task of making decisions that are scientifically sound while keeping stakeholders happy. This is so hard because it means that all plants and animals must be considered in management decisions as well as how managing these species will impact all stakeholders, i.e., people with an interest or concern in how parks and animals are managed. Stakeholders include people living adjacent to parks, the general South African public living away from parks and stakeholders further away, including international tourists and interest groups.
Sometimes the public disagrees with SANParks’ management decisions.
Different stakeholders have different ideas of the best way to manage the plants and animals that they care about or those that impact their livelihoods. For example, farmers who have their crops damaged by wild animals or herders who have livestock eaten by predators may want animals controlled, whereas other stakeholders may want to prevent animals from being controlled. SANParks must sometimes make management decisions that are necessary for conservation but unpopular with some stakeholders. For example, introduced species may need to be controlled because they do not occur naturally in an area, and they are negatively impacting indigenous species. Likewise, indigenous species may need to be controlled because they cause danger and risk to humans or are over abundant in a fenced system where natural population controls are missing, therefore compromising the survival of other species.
Because of disapproval and opposing opinions about SANParks’ wildlife management decisions being aired in the media, staff are often hesitant to communicate contentious issues or even noncontroversial matters, for that matter. However, as we discussed at a science communication workshop in Rondevlei, scientists need to be involved in communicating conservation messages to the public, accepting that not everyone will agree. Although some of us have worked with the SANParks communications team, many haven’t, and we realised that more collaboration is needed between the two groups to harness each other’s skills and communicate science around conservation issues in better ways. One initiative that we discussed at the workshop was working with the communications department to communicate stories from our annual research report to the public through blog and social media posts.
At a recent science communication workshop in the Garden Route National Park (21-23 February 2023), science communicator experts spent time with SANParks science colleagues discussing the importance of science communication and sharing tips on how to become more effective at it. Front, Left to Right, standing Cloverley Lawrence, sitting Sharon Thompson, Melanie de Morney, Tercia Strydom, Danielle Seymour, Corli Wigley-Coetsee, Second row, standing, Left to Right: Lizette Moolman, Lili Rademan, Marina Joubert, Louise Swemmer. Back row standing, Left to Right: Izak Smit, Dumisani Khosa, Petro Kotze, Llewelyn Foxcroft, Dave Zimmerman, Jessica Hayes, Yonela Mahamba, Robin Peterson, Dirk Roux, Alison Kock. In the tree: sitting Deborah Winterton, standing Dian Spear.
At the workshop, we learned how specialised science communication is. Dr. Marina Joubert, an expert on science communication from Stellenbosch University, enlightened us on the science of science communication. She cautioned against broadcasting information blindly, or as she put it “throwing it over the wall”, without knowing your target audience and being strategic in what you communicate. Rather, a communication strategy can be useful in tailoring messages to specific audiences, using appropriate modes of communication and means of engagement. The intricacies of science communication lie in the fact that the information conveyed is “heard” differently by people depending on their beliefs, value systems, confirmation bias, intuition and emotion.
The science of science communication tells us that knowledge is not that important in shaping attitudes toward science. Marina explained that people don’t respond to information based on how much they know but rather on how it makes them feel: people are more likely to respond to emotional connections. The overwhelming success of the film ‘My Octopus Teacher’ and its ability to increase awareness about marine environments and their conservation was because of a special relationship that was portrayed between a man and octopus and the emotion that this evoked in viewers. Research has shown that emotions influence people’s attitudes towards conserving animals. Interestingly, people experience more positive emotions when they think that animals are looking at and connecting with them.
Natural scientists generally aren’t trained in thinking about people’s emotions or creating stories that keep you on the edge of your seat. On the contrary, emotions are discouraged during the training of scientists, who are supposed to stick to data and the facts and make the facts “tell” the story. At the workshop, it became clear that we can communicate more effectively by turning our science into stories. This does not mean leaving out the facts but rather packaging messages in a way that is relatable to the intended audience. It was a surprise to some of us that the words and terminology that we use every day, and take for granted, are often considered jargon and not widely understood. These words are not just incomprehensible for many, but they may even create further distance and disengagement between us and the public.
We also learned that sharing scientific information requires building trust with the audience, which requires building connections. A balance is needed between facts and engaging the audience through a relatable story. Marina quoted an article by Maggie Ryan Sandford called “You can’t fight feelings with facts: start with a chat”. Relationship building is key, and the importance of relationships was a theme that resounded through many of the sessions, including in engaging in conflict negotiation and influencing policy.
We are living in an information age, where information can be created and shared by almost anyone. Unfortunately, a large volume of the information available on the internet and social media is based on perceptions, disinformation and hearsay. So not only do we have an obligation to communicate about our work, but we need to put a strong voice out into the sea of social media “post-truths” to combat misinformation, build trust, engage and gain support from the public through telling our stories. We know that many factors, including different ideologies, drive decision making, making it even more important to provide both scientific facts and insights while building relationships to gain support and understanding for conservation approaches, even if everyone does not always agree.
When SANParks’ decisions do not align with the beliefs and value systems of some stakeholders, negative perceptions can permeate newspapers and social media, often without the full context, complexities and trade-offs that SANParks have had to consider. The tough reality of conservation is that not all actions and decisions are win-win situations, and they often involve difficult trade-offs. Therefore, scientists need to work with science communicators and improve their skills through initiatives like this workshop, in order to tell more good news stories and get people excited about nature and the many initiatives that SANParks is implementing.
Instead of focussing on species that are being removed or controlled, more information should be made available on other species that benefit from management actions. For example, when alien species are removed, and natural systems restored, areas can accommodate more indigenous species and ecosystems can provide more ecosystem services, such as groundwater recharge, flood attenuation and erosion control. Likewise, enabling natural fire regimes enables ecosystems to function optimally to better support the multitude of plants and animals that live in them. The challenge is to make these messages into relatable stories that resonate and move people so that we can build a common understanding and sense of care to work together towards conserving biodiversity.
