传播自然灾害科学建议:理解科学家、决策者和公众对科学过程的看法

IF 4.5 1区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Emma E. H. Doyle , Jessica Thompson , Stephen R. Hill , Matt Williams , Douglas Paton , Sara E. Harrison , Ann Bostrom , Julia S. Becker
{"title":"传播自然灾害科学建议:理解科学家、决策者和公众对科学过程的看法","authors":"Emma E. H. Doyle ,&nbsp;Jessica Thompson ,&nbsp;Stephen R. Hill ,&nbsp;Matt Williams ,&nbsp;Douglas Paton ,&nbsp;Sara E. Harrison ,&nbsp;Ann Bostrom ,&nbsp;Julia S. Becker","doi":"10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How individuals perceive scientific processes impacts their interpretation of, trust in, and use of, science advice particularly when managing uncertain natural hazard risk. We explored a) how diverse stakeholders understand how science of natural hazards is produced, and b) how this relates to their ontological, epistemological, and philosophical views of science. Using inductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with 31 participants involved in the management of natural hazards in Aotearoa New Zealand (including non-scientists), we produced three leading themes describing their views: 1) ‘Science is a way of seeing the world’; 2) ‘Science has limitations’; and 3) ‘Knowledge evolves’.</div><div>Across Scientist, non-Scientist, and Lay public groups, there was broad agreement on the fundamental steps of the scientific process, aligning mostly with a hypothetico-deductive process. However, many discussed how others may have different perspectives of scientific approaches, truth, and reality. These are informed by training, disciplinary biases, cultural practices, and personal experience of hazards and associated science.</div><div>We propose that individuals who recognise different worldviews and philosophies of science will experience higher levels of communication and cognitive uncertainty, which encourages information seeking behaviour and can improve communication efficacy, particularly during high pressure events. We conclude with three communication lessons: 1) be transparent about the processes and causes of change in natural hazards science advice; 2) communicate as both trusted individuals as well as through collective Science Advisory Group (SAG) systems; and 3) provide accessible structures and language to help lay people articulate scientific processes they often intuitively understand, rather than just simplifying information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13915,"journal":{"name":"International journal of disaster risk reduction","volume":"128 ","pages":"Article 105731"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communicating natural hazards science advice: Understanding scientists', decision-makers’, and the public's perceptions of the scientific process\",\"authors\":\"Emma E. H. Doyle ,&nbsp;Jessica Thompson ,&nbsp;Stephen R. Hill ,&nbsp;Matt Williams ,&nbsp;Douglas Paton ,&nbsp;Sara E. Harrison ,&nbsp;Ann Bostrom ,&nbsp;Julia S. Becker\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>How individuals perceive scientific processes impacts their interpretation of, trust in, and use of, science advice particularly when managing uncertain natural hazard risk. We explored a) how diverse stakeholders understand how science of natural hazards is produced, and b) how this relates to their ontological, epistemological, and philosophical views of science. Using inductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with 31 participants involved in the management of natural hazards in Aotearoa New Zealand (including non-scientists), we produced three leading themes describing their views: 1) ‘Science is a way of seeing the world’; 2) ‘Science has limitations’; and 3) ‘Knowledge evolves’.</div><div>Across Scientist, non-Scientist, and Lay public groups, there was broad agreement on the fundamental steps of the scientific process, aligning mostly with a hypothetico-deductive process. However, many discussed how others may have different perspectives of scientific approaches, truth, and reality. These are informed by training, disciplinary biases, cultural practices, and personal experience of hazards and associated science.</div><div>We propose that individuals who recognise different worldviews and philosophies of science will experience higher levels of communication and cognitive uncertainty, which encourages information seeking behaviour and can improve communication efficacy, particularly during high pressure events. We conclude with three communication lessons: 1) be transparent about the processes and causes of change in natural hazards science advice; 2) communicate as both trusted individuals as well as through collective Science Advisory Group (SAG) systems; and 3) provide accessible structures and language to help lay people articulate scientific processes they often intuitively understand, rather than just simplifying information.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of disaster risk reduction\",\"volume\":\"128 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105731\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of disaster risk reduction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420925005552\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of disaster risk reduction","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420925005552","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个人如何看待科学过程会影响他们对科学建议的解释、信任和使用,特别是在管理不确定的自然灾害风险时。我们探讨了a)不同的利益相关者如何理解自然灾害科学是如何产生的,以及b)这与他们的本体论、认识论和科学哲学观点之间的关系。通过对31位参与新西兰奥特罗阿自然灾害管理的参与者(包括非科学家)进行半结构化访谈的归纳分析,我们得出了描述他们观点的三个主要主题:1)“科学是一种看待世界的方式”;2)“科学有局限性”;3)“知识在进化”。在科学家、非科学家和非专业公众团体中,对科学过程的基本步骤有广泛的共识,主要与假设-演绎过程保持一致。然而,许多人讨论了其他人如何对科学方法、真理和现实有不同的看法。这些都是由培训、学科偏见、文化实践以及个人对危害和相关科学的经验所决定的。我们认为,认识到不同世界观和科学哲学的个体将经历更高水平的沟通和认知不确定性,这鼓励了信息寻求行为,并可以提高沟通效率,特别是在高压事件中。我们总结了三个传播教训:1)对自然灾害科学建议变化的过程和原因保持透明;2)作为可信赖的个人以及通过集体科学咨询小组(SAG)系统进行沟通;3)提供可访问的结构和语言,以帮助外行人阐明他们通常凭直觉理解的科学过程,而不仅仅是简化信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Communicating natural hazards science advice: Understanding scientists', decision-makers’, and the public's perceptions of the scientific process
How individuals perceive scientific processes impacts their interpretation of, trust in, and use of, science advice particularly when managing uncertain natural hazard risk. We explored a) how diverse stakeholders understand how science of natural hazards is produced, and b) how this relates to their ontological, epistemological, and philosophical views of science. Using inductive analysis of semi-structured interviews with 31 participants involved in the management of natural hazards in Aotearoa New Zealand (including non-scientists), we produced three leading themes describing their views: 1) ‘Science is a way of seeing the world’; 2) ‘Science has limitations’; and 3) ‘Knowledge evolves’.
Across Scientist, non-Scientist, and Lay public groups, there was broad agreement on the fundamental steps of the scientific process, aligning mostly with a hypothetico-deductive process. However, many discussed how others may have different perspectives of scientific approaches, truth, and reality. These are informed by training, disciplinary biases, cultural practices, and personal experience of hazards and associated science.
We propose that individuals who recognise different worldviews and philosophies of science will experience higher levels of communication and cognitive uncertainty, which encourages information seeking behaviour and can improve communication efficacy, particularly during high pressure events. We conclude with three communication lessons: 1) be transparent about the processes and causes of change in natural hazards science advice; 2) communicate as both trusted individuals as well as through collective Science Advisory Group (SAG) systems; and 3) provide accessible structures and language to help lay people articulate scientific processes they often intuitively understand, rather than just simplifying information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International journal of disaster risk reduction
International journal of disaster risk reduction GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARYMETEOROLOGY-METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
18.00%
发文量
688
审稿时长
79 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (IJDRR) is the journal for researchers, policymakers and practitioners across diverse disciplines: earth sciences and their implications; environmental sciences; engineering; urban studies; geography; and the social sciences. IJDRR publishes fundamental and applied research, critical reviews, policy papers and case studies with a particular focus on multi-disciplinary research that aims to reduce the impact of natural, technological, social and intentional disasters. IJDRR stimulates exchange of ideas and knowledge transfer on disaster research, mitigation, adaptation, prevention and risk reduction at all geographical scales: local, national and international. Key topics:- -multifaceted disaster and cascading disasters -the development of disaster risk reduction strategies and techniques -discussion and development of effective warning and educational systems for risk management at all levels -disasters associated with climate change -vulnerability analysis and vulnerability trends -emerging risks -resilience against disasters. The journal particularly encourages papers that approach risk from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信