The Socially Literate Expert: A New Model of Risk Communication and Social Engagement: Bridging Content and Bridging Process
- Publication Type:
- Thesis
- Issue Date:
- 2020
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
This dissertation is about the capacity of experts to explain the meaning of empirical risk to non-experts. It asks why expertsβ risk communication might succeed or fail by identifying gaps in communication between the two groups, and identifies factors that can bridge these gaps.
The inquiry focusses on seventeen Australian experts who have undertaken risk communication and social engagement with non-experts about the remediation of contaminated sites located in Sydney, N.S.W.. Remediation experts investigate, characterise and assess site contamination, and apply this knowledge to address the uncertainty it poses. They do this by calculating levels of empirical risk and managing that risk. Experts select risk levels that comply with legislative frameworks and policies, and under licence, deploy destruction technologies to remove contaminants from the environment. In this way, they can generate benefits in terms of reduced pollution, reduced public health risk, improved amenity and urban renewal. The proposition that experts can and will do this is critical to the inquiry, since they might be capable of reducing empirical risks and delivering benefits, but then again, they might not be able to, due to the commercial, legal or professional constraints on their independence. Because of these constraints, experts might not be trusted by non-experts no matter how competent they are, and as a result, the credibility of their risk message can be compromised.
To bridge the communication gap between themselves and non-experts, experts must satisfy four conditions. The first is that they are capable of π΅π©π¦ π±π³π’π€π΅πͺπ€π¦ π°π§ π΅π³πΆπ΄π΅ in the social world. No matter how credible a risk message, if people do not trust the person who delivers it, the message will be rejected. It is a case of βwe donβt trust you, so we reject your messageβ, or the converse, βwe trust you, so we accept your messageβ. It reduces to the two key questions around any risk dialogue: βWho do you trust?β and βwho can you trust?β. A person can be trusted only when they can convince other people that are trustworthy. To do this, experts must exhibit sufficient competence to do what they say they can do. In other words they must be able to demonstrate proof of performance.
Three other conditions apply and they lie within the mental world of thought and experience. Firstly, experts require awareness of self and situation, secondly they must possess a sufficiently balanced π±π¦π³π΄π°π―π’, and thirdly, they must exhibit sufficient social literacy. When these three conditions are satisfied, experts have the capacity to bridge communication gaps. The issue is whether or not they will, and here, we return to the social world where π΅π©π¦ π±π³π’π€π΅πͺπ€π¦ π°π§ π΅π³πΆπ΄π΅ comes into play.
This research inquiry explores the knowledge, understanding and experience of experts about risk and uncertainty, and finds that they have varied capacity to communicate with non-experts about them. The variation is associated with the extent to which each expertβs π±π¦π³π΄π°π―π’ supports a sufficient balance between their scientific literacy and their social literacy. Experts, by definition, must be sufficiently scientifically literate to undertake their specific roles, but as to social literacy, the inquiry finds that not all experts are sufficient in this capacity. Social literacy requires an expert to have sufficient knowledge and experience to understand and engage with, the socio-political and psycho-social aspects of techno-scientific phenomena, which, for this inquiry, is pollution destruction technology. When experts can balance their scientific literacy sufficiently with their social literacy, they can communicate effectively about the empirical risk its mobilisation entails.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: