This book review was written by Zahra Nourali, a Communicating Science (GRAD 5144) student.

As a researcher working on the impact of climate change on complex social-ecological systems, I have always found effective communication as essential as any technical skill. Effective communication is critical for collaboration with various stakeholders, including communities, legislators, and economic and industrial sectors. 

    When it comes to effective communication of scientific results, the concept may seem straightforward. However, I find that it can be challenging to put into practice in real-world situations, especially given the interdisciplinary nature of climate change research. That's why I found Faith Kearns's 2021 book, Getting to the Heart of Science Communication: A Guide to Effective Engagement, so helpful. 

    Kearns is a scientist and science communication practitioner with more than 25 years of experience in water, wildfire, and climate change in the western United States. In her book, Kearns challenges the traditional one-way relationship between scientists and their audiences, emphasizing the importance of building an interactive, two-way connection by taking the time and effort to listen and understand people’s emotions and points of view. 

    Kearns highlights the human side of science communication, where listening, engagement, understanding, and learning during communication is not only the audience’s job, but also the scientist’s. By applying Kearns's insights, scientists can learn from others and collaborate more effectively. In this book review, I will explore how Kearns's ideas can be applied to the field of climate change research and how it can improve communication and collaboration to ensure that science has the greatest impact possible.

    Kearns begins with her experience presenting for a 2008 community fire safety day in Northern California where, just a few months before, wildfires had burned through a small community. 

    “We approached the matter with an alarming level of intellectual distance in a place where people were living with the reality of fresh wildfire,” she says. Her team of presenters followed all the traditional instructions for community-engaged scientists: avoid jargon, simplify the information, speak clearly. However, when a man from the audience expressed that listening to what they had presented was retraumatizing for him, Kearns discovered that conventional science communication training had not fully prepared her team. Talking about what people have gone through and have been directly exposed to without taking their experiences and feelings into account is not effective communication.

    Kearns goes over the history of science communication as a tribute to the traditional approach and the academic landscape, but mostly negates it. For example, she talks about how the “deficit” approach of communication, the assumption that lack of information is the primary barrier to action, has been dominant. This model neglects the role of emotions and values in people’s decision-making processes. By weaving in anecdotes from communication practitioners, she highlights the missing links in traditional science communication at the practical level. 

Photo of Zahra Nourali, Communicating Science student. Photo Courtesy of Zahra Nourali.
Book reviewer Zahra Nourali, Communicating Science (GRAD 5144) student. Photo courtesy of Zahra Nourali.

    In one such story, Kearns quotes Sergio Avila, a scientist and outdoors coordinator with the Sierra Club in the southwestern United States: 

    “Most training in science communication is about simplification and streamlining, distilling complexity down to a couple key points to be repeated, focusing on more accurate information as a solution,”  Avila told Kearns. “Too often, scientists create language that is actually meant to exclude people. We build ourselves up as the experts. And then we’re supposed to ‘dumb down’ or simplify our language, which just leads to more feelings of superiority. Scientists walk into a place they don’t know at all, acting like they do know it all.” 

    Kearns believes that “if we drop the pretense of science communication as an intellectually armored endeavor carried out by elites and instead commit to relationship building,” we can make science communication more effective. Instead of “constructing science communication from a position of superiority,” she suggests that science communication practitioners “need to be able to relate, listen, work with conflict, and understand the role of trauma in the communities.” 

    “There is much to be gained by looking at science communication, particularly on emotional and contentious issues, through a relational lens,” Kearns writes. “Understanding the world relationally versus transactionally opens the possibility of working together across subjective and different ways of knowing.” 

    Kearns describes the “relational skills” that are a part of professional training in disciplines such as law, medicine, and therapy and suggests that these skills play an essential role in science communication as well. 

    “There is a vital and exciting world of opportunity waiting to be explored in the move away from performance-based science communication and toward community-accountable, relational engagement,” Kearns writes. 

    As a person working in climate impact assessment, I found the highlighted ideas such as relating, listening, working with conflict, and understanding trauma to be very eye-opening. This book is a must-read for anyone, even people just remotely involved in the sciences. The different perspective towards communicating knowledge suggested by Kearns is not only useful for communicators in the realm of scientific disciplines, but also incredibly inspiring for all forms of communication in everyday life.