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 , Jessica Thompson , Stephen R. Hill , Matt Williams , Douglas Paton , Sara E. Harrison , Ann Bostrom , 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 , Jessica Thompson , Stephen R. Hill , Matt Williams , Douglas Paton , Sara E. Harrison , Ann Bostrom , 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}
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.
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.