Browsing by Author "Hill S"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    ‘Broad consensus across the divide’: rhetorical constructions of climate change in mainstream news media
    (The Royal Society of New Zealand, 2019-05) Crawford L; Breheny M; Mansvelt J; Hill S
    The links between science and policy are navigated prominently in the media. The internet provides a forum for discussion of climate change, allowing lay people to enter the debate. In this paper, rhetorical analysis was used to analyse online news articles and comments from the public following two major climate-related decisions in New Zealand. This analysis demonstrates how arguments regarding climate change are built and defended. Identifying strategies invoked by those that occupy a majority or minority position within public discourse on climate change reveals how such arguments take on rhetorical force, providing the basis for establishing claims and counter-arguments. Understanding the rhetorical constructions of such positions can reveal why particular arguments might gain power, opening the way for a more knowledgeable and informed positioning of individuals, organisations, and scientific knowledge to emerge in public debates on climate change.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Where does scientific uncertainty come from, and from whom? Mapping perspectives of natural hazards science advice
    (Elsevier, 2023-10-01) Doyle EEH; Thompson J; Hill S; Williams M; Paton D; Harrison S; Bostrom A; Becker J
    The science associated with assessing natural hazard phenomena and the risks they pose contains many layers of complex and interacting elements, resulting in diverse sources of uncertainty. This creates a challenge for effective communication, which must consider how people perceive that uncertainty. Thus, we conducted twenty-five mental model interviews in Aotearoa New Zealand with participants ranging from scientists to policy writers and emergency managers, and through to the public. The interviews included three phases: an initial elicitation of free thoughts about uncertainty, a mental model mapping activity, and a semi-structured interview protocol to explore further questions about scientific processes and their personal philosophy of science. Qualitative analysis led to the construction of key themes, including: (a) understanding that, in addition to data sources, the ‘actors’ involved can also be sources of uncertainty; (b) acknowledging that factors such as governance and funding decisions partly determine uncertainty; (c) the influence of assumptions about expected human behaviours contributing to “known unknowns'; and (d) the difficulty of defining what uncertainty actually is. Participants additionally highlighted the positive role of uncertainty for promoting debate and as a catalyst for further inquiry. They also demonstrated a level of comfort with uncertainty and advocated for ‘sitting with uncertainty’ for transparent reporting in advice. Additional influences included: an individual's understanding of societal factors; the role of emotions; using outcomes as a scaffold for interpretation; and the complex and noisy communications landscape. Each of these require further investigation to enhance the communication of scientific uncertainty.