PATHWAYS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION 496

Overcoming barriers to effective public communication of ecology Richard J Hobbs

N

ot long after I arrived in Western Australia as a junior scientist, about 20 years ago, I was asked to take part in a farmers’ field day in the agricultural area where our research sites were established. The field day, organized by the local Landcare Group (see www.landcareonline.com), focused on various ways of combating land degradation, due particularly to salinity and biodiversity loss. My job was to talk about methods of revegetation that would be of most benefit to local fauna. So there I was in the middle of a large field, surrounded by a group of about 50 local farmers and their families, speaking through a loudspeaker with severe feedback problems, about a complex subject we were actively researching but for which we had few tangible results. I did what one usually does in situations where one doesn’t really know what to say: I talked in vague generalities, babbled on about birds needing habitat and corridors, waved my hands around a lot, and told them we’d have some more concrete suggestions once we had done more research. After I’d finished, there was an embarrassing silence for a few moments and then one farmer stuck his hand in the air and laconically asked, “So how many trees do I need to plant to have a useful impact?” Stifling the impulse to shrug my shoulders and say, “Damned if I know”, I waved my hands around some more and said something to the effect that, “It depends”. There being no further questions, the group moved on to the next speaker, who was to give a talk on digging drains. He spoke animatedly, without trying to use the squawking loudspeaker, about angles of incline, dollars per kilometer, and other technical details, and expertly fielded the many questions from the farmers, who were all delighted to have something solid and understandable on which to focus. That could have been the end of my public communication career, there and then. Feeling slightly stupid about wasting both my time and the farmers’, I resolved never to repeat the experience and to figure out why I’d failed so miserably at communicating, while the other guy had done such a great job. In fact, it wasn’t too hard to figure out: I hadn’t been prepared, I didn’t have anything concrete or relevant to say, and I hadn’t considered what angle to take in order to engage my audience. I hadn’t thought about the possibility (in fact high probability) that they might know more about their local area than a naïve Scottish immigrant who had just recently breezed in (eg Wynne 1992). I also hadn’t considered beforehand how to communicate effectively in circumstances outside of the standard presentation

Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia ([email protected]) www.frontiersinecology.org

forum that ecologists are used to – in this case in an open field without the benefit of visual aids. Finally, when my senior scientist told me to go, I hadn’t had the foresight to say, “No, you should do it!”. Twenty years on, I find myself trying to prepare students for life in the real world, including teaching them effective communication skills. I run exercises in which groups of students have to prepare and present material on a given topic to a particular audience, from a group of school children to the Federal Minister for the Environment (see wwwscieng.murdoch.edu.au/centres/ecorestor/index.html). The point I try to make is that everyone benefits from being able to communicate better, and there are a set of skills which can be learned which better equip people to do so, whether it be by written, spoken, or visual means (eg Wills and Hobbs 1998; Jacobson 1999). Most of the students, though reluctant at first, come to appreciate the message, and many actually begin to enjoy the process. Few would argue with the premise underlying this series in Frontiers, namely that communication of ecological research is important and is something we need to do more of, and do more effectively. I advocate this often and in many venues. However, I am continually confronted with a number of questions and problems from the people I talk to about this. These concerns generally include the problem of choosing the best avenue for communication, as well as issues such as the lack of recognition and reward in the academic system for public communication activities. The latter problem is exacerbated by the increasingly antipathetic attitude of some agencies towards their scientific staff who engage in broader discourse in public and policy arenas. What are the demotivating factors which may prevent or discourage ecologists from communicating to non-scientific audiences? I was standing in that field, trying to talk to farmers because the agency I worked for actively encouraged, and even expected, its scientists to communicate their science to practitioners and others. That same agency is now in the media spotlight because of claims that scientists are being actively restricted from engaging in public debate (Davies 2006; Plockley 2006). Fortunately, some institutions do still actively promote science communication. Yet elsewhere, scientists increasingly run the risk of censure or loss of their position if they communicate policy-relevant science which contradicts powerful counterlobbies (eg Pope and Rauber 2004). Even universities are, in some cases, becoming more wary of outspoken academic staff, in fear of losing funding or facing other repercussions. This is a worrying trend that scientific societies, national academies, and others need to expose and reverse. © The Ecological Society of America

Pathways to effective communication

RJ Hobbs

The other major problem, that of academics not receiving recognition or reward for public communication activities, also needs to be addressed. Because tenure, promotion, and other forms of advancement are most clearly linked to acquiring large grants and accumulating publications in high impact factor journals, it’s obvious that any sensible person would concentrate on these activities. However, grants and publications are only half the story, especially at the applied end of ecology and in associated disciplines like conservation biology and restoration ecology. Communication with practitioners, policy makers, and the broader public is an Farmers and scientists take part in a field day in the central wheatbelt of essential part of the process. Anyone who has influ- Western Australia. ence within the academic system needs to work to • choose your medium carefully (eg PowerPoint doesn’t ensure that these activities are given due recognition. work in the middle of a field) Finally, let us focus briefly on the question of how best to • remember that communication is a two-way process: a communicate. There are many potential avenues for combrief presentation is often simply a prelude to more munication, from writing for local newsletters to writing interactive communication popular books or articles for prominent magazines; from talk• preparation and practice are everything! ing at your local primary school to doing shows on mainstream television networks; and from trying to influence the managers of a local nature reserve to trying to change Further details on these and other ideas can be found in national or international policy. Each of these requires dif- Wills and Hobbs (1998), Jacobson (1999), and other ferent skills and approaches, and no single one is necessarily books on communication skills. Changing one opinion on a key issue, inspiring one any less important than another. Given that everyone is already busy with the work of being a practicing scientist, young mind (or even an old one), or affecting the way one juggling research with teaching and administration, we can’t small piece of nature is managed is a laudable achievement, all engage in full-time communication activities – we can’t and adds to the ecological literacy of the population as a all be a Paul Ehrlich or a David Suzuki. The bottom line is whole. Each step, large or small, may be the one which that what we end up doing depends to a large extent on per- finally tips the balance in favor of more sensible ways of sonal skills and preferences on the one hand and opportuni- running the planet (Gladwell 2000). To quote from ties on the other. Not everyone is a born communicator; Charles Handy (1994), a well-known authority on business some people actively dislike communicating in public and management: “Change comes from small initiatives which some types of research lend themselves to broader communi- work, initiatives which, imitated, become the fashion. We cation better than others. However, everyone who wants to cannot wait for great visions from great people, for they are can improve the effectiveness of their communications, in short supply…It is up to us to light our own small fires in both to other scientists and to society at large. The key to the darkness.” Lighting our own small fires is only useful if success is adequate preparation, skill development, and a other people see them; communication is the key element that we need to nurture and grow. sound understanding of the chosen milieu. What are these key skills? Here are a few key points that I teach my students:
References • know your audience • tailor the presentation to the audience (eg level of detail, number of facts) • keep to the main message (this involves figuring out what that is and then sticking to it!) • “stand up, speak up, shut up”, ie keep it brief and talk so that people can hear you, which often means using a microphone, if it is available • “say what you are going to say, say it, and then say what you have said”, ie give a brief introduction on what you are talking about, deliver your main points and summarize what you’ve said at the end • deliver your main points first rather than hiding them until the end © The Ecological Society of America

Davies G. 2006. Suppression of science sacrifices the future. Austral Sci 27: 42. Gladwell M. 2000. The tipping point: how little things make a big difference. London, UK: Abacus. Handy C. 1994. The empty raincoat: making sense of the future. London, UK: Arrow Books. Jacobson SK. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC: Island Press. Plockley P. 2006. CSIRO threatens staff over media leaks. Austral Sci 27: 39–40. Pope C and Rauber P. 2004. Strategic ignorance: why the Bush Administration is recklessly destroying a century of environment progress. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Wills RT and Hobbs RJ (Eds). 1998. Ecology for everyone: communicating ecology to scientists, the public, and the politicians. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons. Wynne B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1: 281–304. www.frontiersinecology.org

497