This article, by Tayt Armitage, is part of a series highlighting members of the Office of Sustainability’s Experts Database. In a collaboration with instructor Hannah Monroe’s course, LSC 561: Writing Science for the Public, students interviewed campus sustainability experts and produced short feature stories.
Public trust in scientists is falling fast. A study by the Pew Research Center found that since the Covid-19 pandemic, distrust in scientists has increased by 11 percent. But what has caused the distrust? And can it be repaired?
A possible problem is communication: scientists are failing to connect with their audience. UW–Madison professor Nan Li is researching accessible ways for scientists to deliver their results.
Traditionally, scientists have relied on presenting raw data in hopes of educating the public.
“If you know all of these data, you know all of these numbers and facts and logical arguments, [scientists think that] … you should agree with whatever that we need to tell you,” Li said, characterizing the approach. “However, based on decades of research on science communication, that approach rarely works. And sometimes it can even backfire.”
So how can research be presented using more than raw data? The answer: Art.
Inspired by the success of the “flatten the curve” and visual aids used during the pandemic, Li has sought to incorporate more visuals into scientific communication. Driven by the idea that “maybe a picture is worth a thousand words,” she believes that artistic works can deliver scientific ideas in a more accessible way for wider audiences. This approach can be used for divisive topics such as climate change or genetic engineering in crops.
Li explained that the current style of data-driven communication fails by lacking necessary ambiguity. A plot or graph provides no room for a second thought; the data says what it says. This can be challenging if the data conflicts with someone’s worldview or is difficult to connect to everyday life.
Art, however, isn’t usually explicit in its message. Each person can walk away with a different understanding. This allows for people to make connections of their own, which can be vital to establishing a foundation for conversation.
Li tested this by comparing the effectiveness of art to conventional graphs in the context of climate change. The participants included people from both liberal and conservative backgrounds. One group saw just the graphs, while the other viewed artwork from environmental artists. The result: Regardless of political background, those who saw the artwork had greater perceived connection to climate change.
And the artwork also elicited emotional responses.
“Based on our research, we found that people usually reported a higher level of positive emotions,” Li said. “Curiosity, sense of awe, wonder.”
Climate change isn’t the most joy-inducing topic. But Li has shown that even research with heavy implications can be delivered in a way that doesn’t leave people scared or argumentative. Rather, it elicits curiosity.
Experiencing an emotional response “allows people to somehow put down or lower their defensive barrier when they encounter something that they don’t disagree or may not agree with in the first place,” Li said.
Lowering defensive barriers could be the first step for scientists seeking to remedy the public’s disconnect from and distrust of science. But before artwork becomes commonplace in science communication, there is still much work to be done.
“I hope that more scholars inside communication can join me, just like doing more research and actually showing the potential” of artistic approaches, Li said. “At the same time, I think we do need more research to not just show the positives, but also show the caveats as well.”