Narrative transportation, identification, and storytelling in environmental (science) communication.
The text below is part of an academic research. The full research can be downloaded below.
Abstract
In this day and age, one of our most challenging communication topics is climate change and the degradation of nature (Fraenkel, 2020). The old model of science communication - whereby scientists in lab coats communicate their facts and truth through mass communication channels - is coming to an end (Climate Outreach, 2017). The science of science communication is a developing body (Climate Outreach, 2017; Corner & Clarke, 2016). There is an urgent need to understand how narratives can contribute to communicating about environmental science more effectively, by aligning with the needs and values of different audiences (Climate Outreach, 2017). Using narratives in environmental communication has become increasingly common (Smith et al., 2014). Yet, many scientists are uncertain about how to communicate and translate their research into compelling stories (Martinez-Conde et al., 2019).
This study aims to give scientists and environmental organisations insight into the mechanisms of narrative persuasive storytelling and how an audience processes stories. It concludes that stories are uniquely suited for changing emotionally held opinions and beliefs, and can help individuals to understand complex and abstract scientific subjects. Furthermore, this study concludes that identification is a vital element in narrative persuasion.
Keywords: environmental communication, science communication, social sciences, storytelling, narrative transportation, narrative persuasion, identification, behavioural change, knowledge deficit model.
Introduction
The old model of science communication - whereby scientists in lab coats communicate their facts and truth through mass communication channels - is coming to an end (Climate Outreach, 2017).
Climate Outreach - Europe’s leading specialist in climate change communication - claims that many science communication strategies still focus on one-way communication, and on communicating facts more clearly, instead of creating engagement with the audience.
A current four-year research programme from Mistra Environmental Communications (Mistra EC), initiated by SLU in Sweden, aims to reframe and set a grounded understanding of environmental communication in such a way that it can effectively foster sustainability transformations. One of their goals is to bridge the gap between theory and practice, and to “explore, develop and apply strategies for transformative environmental communication practices.” (Mistra EC, 2019, p. 6).
This study involves narrative persuasive communications, also known as story-based communications. This contrasts argument-based communications, which strive to persuade by presenting a series of logical and cogent arguments in favour of a given viewpoint (Perloff, 2013).
This study focuses on the communication of messages that are conveyed through audio, video, and text in a narrative form for public mediated communication with a strategic purpose. It is especially relevant for environmental organisations that strive to use communication strategically and purposefully to influence attitudes and behaviours of the public, to fulfil their overall mission (Falkheimer & Heide, 2018). This study also discusses which medium and conditions could be suitable for narrative transportation in a digital age whereby noise, distractions (pop-up messages), and interruptions (ads) play a role in our daily media consumption.
Extensive research about the importance of narratives in environmental communication has been conducted. Scientific publications such as Climate Change and Storytelling (Arnold, 2020) focus on narratives and cultural meaning in environmental communication, and why they matter.
Other research emphasises the importance of storytelling, characters and narrative structures in science communication. However, hardly any research in environmental (science) communications has involved the psychological aspect of story comprehension: how an individual assimilates information and stimuli derived from a story. Existing research about narratives in environmental communication states that narratives are naturally persuasive (Dahlstrom, 2014), but do not explore the mechanisms of narrative persuasion in depth. What makes a persuasive narrative?
To successfully craft and communicate environmental persuasive stories, the communicator must understand the underlying principles of narrative persuasion. The objective of this study is to present a clear foundation for narrative persuasive mechanisms for environmental (science) communicators. Its purpose is to increase understanding of story comprehension, and to highlight and offer potential directions for scientists, science communicators and storytellers.
Research questions
RQ1 What is environmental (science) communication and why is it challenging?
RQ2 How can stories close the gap between science and non-expert audiences?
RQ3 What is narrative persuasion and what components are needed to achieve it?
Methodology
This literature review synthesises existing research on environmental (science) communication, narrative transportation, and narrative persuasion. Its nature is exploratory and based upon literature containing the following keywords: environmental communication, science communication, storytelling, narrative transportation, narrative persuasion, identification, behavioural change, and knowledge deficit model. Literature about the nature-culture divide, human-animal relations, and the representation of nature in the media was excluded from the main body of this study.
This review begins with defining environmental and science communication, continues to explore current science communication models, and gradually moves onto storytelling and narrative persuasion. It ends with a discussion about the feasibility of narrative transportation on mobile devices, and points out future research related to the nature-culture divide and the representation of nature in the media.
Results
Environmental communication is vastly interdisciplinary. It ‘focuses on how communication about the environment shapes people’s perceptions of the natural world, what behaviours they adopt, and the policies they make’ (Wimmer et al., 2004, p. 2). It has several areas of focus which analyse specific forms of communication. These include public participation, media, social movements, risk communications, and science communication. Scholars who focus on environmental communication through media could also study photography, films, television shows, websites, social media and advertisements (Wimmer et al., 2004).
Science communication covers a wide range of concepts, ‘including professional communication by scientists; interactions between scientists and members of the public; media representations of science; and the ways how people use scientific knowledge in their own lives’ (Climate Outreach, 2018, p. 8). The core goal of a science communicator is to communicate scientifically accurate information. They often approach this with the Knowledge Deficit Model (KDM): a model of communication that focuses on the repeating of objective and sterile information in an attempt to increase understanding (Jones Michael & Anderson Crow, 2017). The five primary purposes of science communication are: awareness, interest, enjoyment, increase understanding, and opinion formation (Burns et al., 2003).
The late Ralph J. Cicerone, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences and authority figure on climate change, already stated in 2005 - one year before his death - that there is a great need for new communication strategies to counter lagging public enthusiasm and reduce discomfort with science (Simis et al., 2016). Yet, many science communication strategies still focus on one-way communication, and on communicating facts more clearly, instead of creating engagement with the audience (Climate Outreach, 2017). Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?
First, a study by Simis et al. (2016) revealed that many graduate studies in “science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields” (p. 401) lack training in public communication. They are not required to learn about communication practises during their studies, nor about opinion formation on scientific issues. Scientists are trained to process information rationally, make conclusions based on empirical information, and be objective in decision making. Simis et al. (2016) also discovered that scientists accept with the hierarchy within sciences, with ‘softer’ sciences (e.g. social sciences) at the bottom. The relationship between scientists’ attitudes towards softer sciences and their attachment to the KDM presents both challenges and opportunities. For example, scientists with a more positive attitude towards soft sciences are less likely to use the KDM.
Scientists who have a less positive attitude may be unwilling to accept the findings from softer sciences about their communication toward public audiences. This negative image of soft sciences might mean that no amount of coursework in those areas will shift their perception about how the public forms attitudes toward science. Promoting a more positive image of soft sciences appears to be effective in shifting current thinking patterns. In other words, confronting scientists with this bias may lead to a more positive attitude towards soft sciences, which could lead to scientists considering more effective communication forms to reach the public (Simis et al., 2016).
A second factor that may sustain to the gap between scientists and the public is that most scientists view the public as ‘other’. This viewpoint separates scientists from the public and creates a scientist-public dichotomy. Such a divide can contribute to unequal power hierarchies, in which scientist view themselves above other members of society. If scientists regard the public as unintelligent, ignorant, and therefore lesser than themselves, they will likely adhere to the KDM. Scientists with this mindset may make less of an effort to connect with public audiences in ways that are understandable and meaningful or think about the role of them in the scientific process (Simis et al., 2016).
Another issue in the communication of environmental (science) is the rise of fake news and the fragmentation of the media landscape (Mistra EC, 2019). People associate global warming with violence on television and see it as a minor concern to them (Hamblyn, 2009). Public perceptions about environmental and climate issues play a significant role when it comes to supporting climate policies (Arnold, 2018). However, using narratives in environmental communication has become increasingly common. (Smith et al., 2014). Narratives appear to be more effective, as long as the language reflects the values of the audience (Corner et al., 2012; Kahan et al., 2010). Particularly metaphors and analogies play an essential role in aligning messages with the existing values of the audience. They act as mental shortcuts to evaluate complex information (Shaw & Nerlich, 2015; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), and increase engagement with broader audiences (Peters et al., 2006; Sinayev & Peters, 2015).
The text above is part of an academic research. Download the full PDF above.