Differences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication

Simple item page
dc.citation.volume9
dc.contributor.authorDoyle EEH
dc.contributor.authorThompson J
dc.contributor.authorHill SR
dc.contributor.authorWilliams M
dc.contributor.authorPaton D
dc.contributor.authorHarrison SE
dc.contributor.authorBostrom A
dc.contributor.authorBecker JS
dc.contributor.editorTagliacozzo S
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-21T02:37:43Z
dc.date.available2024-06-21T02:37:43Z
dc.date.issued2024-04-04
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: We conducted mental model interviews in Aotearoa NZ to understand perspectives of uncertainty associated with natural hazards science. Such science contains many layers of interacting uncertainties, and varied understandings about what these are and where they come from creates communication challenges, impacting the trust in, and use of, science. To improve effective communication, it is thus crucial to understand the many diverse perspectives of scientific uncertainty. Methods: Participants included hazard scientists (n = 11, e.g., geophysical, social, and other sciences), professionals with some scientific training (n = 10, e.g., planners, policy analysts, emergency managers), and lay public participants with no advanced training in science (n = 10, e.g., journalism, history, administration, art, or other domains). We present a comparative analysis of the mental model maps produced by participants, considering individuals’ levels of training and expertise in, and experience of, science. Results: A qualitative comparison identified increasing map organization with science literacy, suggesting greater science training in, experience with, or expertise in, science results in a more organized and structured mental model of uncertainty. There were also language differences, with lay public participants focused more on perceptions of control and safety, while scientists focused on formal models of risk and likelihood. Discussion: These findings are presented to enhance hazard, risk, and science communication. It is important to also identify ways to understand the tacit knowledge individuals already hold which may influence their interpretation of a message. The interview methodology we present here could also be adapted to understand different perspectives in participatory and co-development research.
dc.description.confidentialfalse
dc.edition.edition2024
dc.format.pagination1-18
dc.identifier.citationDoyle EEH, Thompson J, Hill SR, Williams M, Paton D, Harrison SE, Bostrom A, Becker JS. (2024). Differences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication. Frontiers in Communication. 9. (pp. 1-18).
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fcomm.2024.1366995
dc.identifier.eissn2297-900X
dc.identifier.elements-typejournal-article
dc.identifier.urihttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/69962
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherFrontiers Media S.A.
dc.publisher.urihttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1366995/full
dc.relation.isPartOfFrontiers in Communication
dc.rights(c) 2024 The Author/s
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectuncertainty
dc.subjectscience communication
dc.subjectmental models
dc.subjectnatural hazards
dc.subjectexpertise
dc.subjecttacit knowledge
dc.titleDifferences in perceived sources of uncertainty in natural hazards science advice: lessons for cross-disciplinary communication
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.elements-id488429
pubs.organisational-groupOther
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Published version.pdf
Size:
2.84 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
488429 PDF.pdf
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
9.22 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles