1
Using Communication Theory and Strategy to Communicate Science and Build Stakeholder
Relationships in the Arctic
White paper submitted to the “Actor and stakeholder engagement and needs in sustained Arctic
observations” Thematic Working Group for the 2016 Arctic Observing Summit
Kristin Timm1, Rich Hum2, and Matthew Druckenmiller3
1. Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, University of Alaska Fairbanks
(kmtimm@alaska.edu)
2. Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska Fairbanks
3. National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado Boulder
The Critical Need for Strategic Communication in the Arctic
Adapting to and planning for rapid environmental change in the Arctic is a function of understanding the
physical processes driving the change, as well as the subjective processes that determine how humans
perceive and react to the related risks (Adger, 2010; Adger, 2006; Cantrill,1998; Kotchen & Young,
2007). If the processes of change are tightly coupled to human behavior—as they are in the Arctic—then
this is an iterative process that demands efficient communication (Meadow et al., 2015; Ferguson et al.,
2014; Lindenfeld et al., 2013; Folke et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2004). The arctic region, however, has
several distinct communication challenges, including the rapid rate of environmental change, a wide
range of audiences and stakeholders, and logistical issues that are derived from the geography and lack of
infrastructure. Integrating and applying the theories of communication to science communication and
stakeholder engagement in arctic science—particularly in the development of the Arctic Observing
System—can help overcome these challenges and have tangible benefits for audiences and scientists
alike.
The Arctic is warming more rapidly than almost anywhere else on Earth. In Alaska the average annual
temperature has increased by approximately 4°F in the past 50 years (Markon et al., 2012). Related
impacts to sea ice, glaciers, permafrost, weather, and ecosystems influence the availability of and access
to natural resources used for life sustaining, economic, cultural, and recreational purposes in the Arctic
(Markon et al., 2012; Wolken et al., 2011). With these rapid changes in temperature, ecosystem services,
and human activities, there is a vital need to internationally coordinate long-term observations of the
Arctic and link these observations to the needs of stakeholders affected communities, stakeholders, and
decision makers—both within and outside the Arctic—in their efforts to mitigate risks, respond to
change, and capitalize on opportunities (Lee et al., 2015). It is very likely that Alaska’s temperatures will
continue to increase, continuing to stimulate the need for science communication and stakeholder
engagement in and about the Arctic (Vörösmarty et al., 2015; IPCC, 2013; Markon et al., 2012).
2
Like many regions experiencing rapid environmental change, the arctic has many potential audiences and
stakeholders. The audiences span from people who are merely interested in occasional, timely updates
(e.g. news media) to those who are looking for detailed real time information (e.g. subsistence hunters,
disaster response) to those who are looking for synthesis information to guide policy and decision making
(e.g. resource managers, village council). These audiences have a wide range of information needs, belief
structures, background knowledge, experiences, and values that will inevitably shape the information that
is received (Hamilton, 2015; Kahan et al., 2012). With so many potential audiences, it is critical to “get
the right participation and get the participation right” to efficiently used resources in this logistically
challenging communication environment (Stern & Fireberg, 1996).
The flow of information into and around the Arctic is logistically challenging and can involve great time
and cost. For example, interpersonal communication may be preferred for a particular project, but travel
to meet residents of a remote Arctic community can take days, has substantial costs, and requires careful
planning in order to accommodate residents’ subsistence hunting or gathering. In addition, technological
infrastructure may be less advanced in some communities yielding slow internet speeds, limited cell
phone reception, etc. Unfortunately, time and cost are also limiting factors in many science
communication and engagement efforts (Ferguson et al., 2014). To efficiently use communication
resources, communication methods should be carefully chosen in close consultation or collaboration with
the intended audiences.
One of the goals of the Arctic Observing System is to transfer scientific knowledge into other domains
and to a diverse range of stakeholders (Lee at al., 2015). A strategic approach to science communication
and stakeholder engagement could help the Arctic Observing System meet its goals. Strategic
communication is defined as, “the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its
mission (Hallahan et al., 2007).” Theories from several communication disciplines inform the strategic
communication approach, including management, marketing, public relations, technical communication,
political communication, and social marketing (Hallahan et al., 2007). The strategic communication
process can help research teams set unambiguous communication and engagement goals, select target
audiences, develop understandings of those audiences, deliberately choose messages and methods, and
evaluate and assess outcomes.
The Arctic is changing rapidly, in ways that are highly coupled, and will provide both opportunities and
risks to people within and outside the region (Vörösmarty et al., 2015; Markon et al., 2012). Central to
stakeholder engagement is communication, and we argue here that the strategic communication process—
formed through decades of research—can inform a more strategic, integrated, and deliberate approach for
communicating the process, results, and information from the Arctic Observing System. At best, this
approach could facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and the co-production
of knowledge in the Arctic. Failure to communicate effectively could result in a loss of investment and
practical value of the Arctic Observing Network.
Theoretical Foundations of the Communication Discipline
Fundamentally, communication is a three step process where 1) the communicator sends a message (e.g.,
puts thoughts into spoken words), 2) an audience receives the message (e.g., takes the words and applies
3
meaning), and 3) the communicator responds based on how the message is received and interpreted
(Arundale, 2013; Arundale, 2006; Bavelas, 1950; Gabor, 1946.). This cycle overlaps between parties,
where step 2 from the communicator’s perspective represents step 1 to the audience. Step 3 is critical, as
this is where shared meaning is built. The dynamic and iterative impact of overlapping cycles is why
audience awareness is so important and what changes merely sending a message to genuine
communication where meaning is shared between two or more people.
Early communication studies defined two modes of communication: interpersonal and broadcast. In
interpersonal communication, fewer communicators are involved and the basic communication cycle is
generally completed more rapidly with more feedback in step 2. This allows for more rapid convergence
of meaning and shared context of the information being exchanged (Carassa & Colombetti 2015; DeVito,
2007; Perse & Courtright, 1993). Shared context does not imply that each communicator will see “eye to
eye” on an issue. It does, however, mean that the communicators are at least approaching an issue with a
shared understanding of the others perspective—including basic assumptions made and rules for
determining fact. Broadcast communication generally involves much larger numbers of communicators
and typically slow and diffuse feedback during step 2 (McQuail, 2010). This slows the communicator’s
ability to adapt new messages based on the listener’s response to the previous information.
Each mode has advantages and disadvantages for science communication and stakeholder engagement.
Interpersonal communication is good at developing context between communicators with divergent belief
structures, but has traditionally had limited “reach.” Broadcast communication is good at reaching large
numbers of people but is poor at building shared context, and thus is more effective when communicators
and audiences share similar belief structures (Canna, 2013; Kamal, 2015).
Application to the Practice of Strategic Communication
The dynamic and iterative nature of communication is the theoretical foundation for the strategic
communication process—a deliberate communication process used meet specific organizational goals
(Hallahan et al., 2007). Hallahan and colleagues (2007) describe the use of strategic communication
across many sectors, including corporations, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations.
While it has been used frequently in health and other informational campaigns, strategic communication
has been used infrequently in the communication of biophysical sciences (Lindenfeld et al., 2013; Bubela
et al. 2009). This can be traced back, at least in part, to Vannevar Bush’s report titled “Science, the
Endless Frontier” (Bush, 1960). Bush outlined the distinctions between “basic” and “applied” research
that resulted in a linear communication model intended to isolate science from the value-laden world
(Byerly & Pielke, 1995; Pielke, 1997; Stokes; 1997).
As a result, the audiences for scientific information have traditionally been treated as consumers who get
the information at the end of the process—referred to as the “deficit model” or “loading dock” approach
to science communication (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Bubela et al. 2009; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009;
Cash et al., 2006). In the deficit model of science communication, the audience is perceived to be lacking
a specific type of knowledge and the purpose of science communication is to convey information to fill
this deficit (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).
4
There is a growing recognition that science, as it has been practiced and communicated, is inadequate to
meet the challenges of climate change in the Arctic (Meadow et al., 2015; Knapp & Trainor, 2013). In
their review of climate change adaptation plans from across Alaska, Knapp and Trainor (2013) note that
communities, agencies, and other institutions want, “processes that are more transparent, collaborative,
and accessible.” To that end, arctic stakeholders and scientists should work together to identify the goal(s)
for science communication and stakeholder engagement. Providing information, changing behavior,
changing policy, or seeking financial support are three example goals that each require different
communication approaches and that will yield very different outcomes. Formal or informal audience
research—in the form of surveys, interviews, focus groups, or meetings—can be a useful tool for
identifying who really needs and wants scientific information and how and why they want it.
Only after the goals have been identified and the audience has been selected, should communication
methods and tools be considered. Scientists should consider where and how the potential audiences are
already communicating, think about ways to enter those conversations, and look for places where their
existing communication patterns (mode, topic, channel) overlap with audiences. For many
communicators, the tendency is to select tools at the beginning of the process and that appeal to their
learning style, are easy or inexpensive to use, or that capitalize on an existing interest. However, careful
audience analysis and understanding will reveal how audiences consume information and the tools they
prefer to use (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Bubela et al. 2009).
The modern communication landscape offers a variety of tools for broadcast, interpersonal, or a mix of
these communication modes (Calori & Divitini, 2009; Carr & Hayes, 2015). For example, a health
scientist may want to reach communities with a simple message about the health benefits of consuming
subsistence foods. Finding an elder (the right messenger with shared values) to deliver that message over
TV (broadcast style) could be very effective. An interpersonal approach may be more appropriate for a
scientist wanting to inform wildlife management and policy. By asking questions, engaging early, and
building relationships with wildlife managers (interpersonal style), the scientist may build a relationship
and learn that the managers prefer short, printed research briefs that synthesize the research.
George Bernard Shaw said that, “the single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has
taken place.” Communicators tend to overestimate the success of their communications (Keysar & Henly,
2002). No matter the tool, to see if communication was successful it has to be measured using either
qualitative (e.g., scoring rubric, interview) or quantitative (e.g., network analysis, survey) methods
(Meadow et al., 2015). Defining a timetable for both formative and summative assessments allows
communication approaches to be modified during and after the process (Meadow et al 2015). Evaluation
is also a useful tool for reflecting on what worked or didn’t with specific audiences or stakeholder groups,
which can help maintain or improve the efficiency of communication and collaboration over time as
illustrated conceptually by Ferguson and colleagues (2014)(Figure 1).
5
Figure 1. Ferguson and colleagues (2014) illustrated the evolution of a collaborative partnership
between scientists and resource practitioners over time. This figure illustrates how communication can be
infrequent and unfocused early in the collaborative process and how it becomes more frequent and
specific over time.
Strategic Communication: A Significant Opportunity for the Arctic Observing System
The description for the stakeholder engagement theme for the 2016 Arctic Observing Summit describes
how arctic observing systems need to serve the dual function of 1) providing critical information to actors
and stakeholders (interested in or impacted by Arctic change, or interested in learning about change and
taking action) and 2) supporting scientific research. Additional Arctic Observing Summit themes identify
specific stakeholder groups or potential audiences, including the private sector and Arctic indigenous
peoples. Taken together, these objectives create a substantial science communication effort.
Herein lies an opportunity for the Arctic Observing System—to adopt a more integrated and strategic
approach to science communication and stakeholder engagement. Because the Arctic Observing Summit
is engaging many potential audiences and stakeholder groups in discussions about the utility of the Arctic
Observing System and the information that it will produce, the conference should produce some of the
foundational audience analysis to begin a communication strategy. Integrating the strategic
communication process with the science and management of the observing network could provide a
useful framework for supporting communication and engagement across the Arctic Observing System.
A strategic approach to science communication and stakeholder engagement is by its very nature a more
integrated approach to science communication in the Arctic—a recommendation that was articulated in a
recent workshop report from Vörösmarty et al., (2014). The report states how, “a research program
6
dedicated to the study of science communication for climate and cryospheric change is timely and in the
national interest.” The authors go on to describe how an integrated research program has yet to be created
that can address and unite both the physical and social science in order to effectively study and
communicate the effects of the changing cryosphere (Vörösmarty et al., 2014). Case studies and peerreviewed literature about this process would provide valuable information to scientists, communication
practitioners, and communication researchers who are excited about working on these interdisciplinary
issues, but currently have few examples from which to learn.
There are also challenges to applying a strategic communication to science communication and
stakeholder engagement. The institutions and funding mechanisms traditionally involved in Arctic
observing and research haven’t traditionally supported a strategic, integrated approach to science
communication (Meadow et al., 2015; Vörösmarty et al., 2014). Many academic institutions don’t reward
communication and stakeholder engagement activities at a level that corresponds to the necessary effort—
yet these activities take a significant amount of time (Meadow et al., 2015; Ferguson et al., 2014).
Misunderstandings between physical and social scientists continue to inhibit collaboration between
disciplines—yet adopting an integrated and strategic approach to science communication depends on the
perceived validity of the social sciences among all the members of the team (Meadow et al., 2015;
Lindenfeld et al., 2012). Lindenfeld and colleagues (2012) noted how in their project many biophysical
colleagues initially thought of communication research as the public relations branch of the team. They go
on to describe, however, how the perspectives of the team changed over time and how communication
research offered valuable contributions to the collective effort (Lindenfeld et al., 2012).
There is a growing body of evidence to show how communication research and theory can be useful for
integrated and strategic approaches to science communication and stakeholder engagement in complex
situations, such as rapid environmental change (Meadow et al., 2015, Knapp & Trainor 2013, Lindenfeld
et al, 2012; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009). The strategic communication process is a framework that has been
used across many sectors and could be particularly useful for the Arctic Observing System, given it’s
ambitious science communication and stakeholder engagement goals and the unique challenges presented
by communication in the Arctic. Attention to selecting and understanding target audiences helps ensure
that communication goals and approaches are deliberately aligned with the audiences’ values and needs.
Because strategic communication can be evaluated and studied, the resources allotted to stakeholder
engagement can be evaluated for efficiency and the results can contribute to a greater understanding of
the benefits and challenges of adopting a strategic approach to science communication. Applying
communication research to practice can help bridge knowledge and action through more socially relevant
research results—a critical need in the Arctic where natural phenomena are tightly coupled to human
activity (Knapp & Trainor 2012; Lindenfeld et al, 2012; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009, Cash et al., 2003).
7
References:
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-281.
Adger, W. N. (2010). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. In Der
klimawandel (pp. 327-345). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Arundale, R. B. (2013). Conceptualizing ‘interaction’ in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for
understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 12-26.
Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on
face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 2(2), 193216.
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the acoustical society of
America.
Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of
science. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science new agendas in communication (pp.
11-39). New York: Routledge.
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., et al. (2009). Science
communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518.
Bush,V., 1960: Science, the endless frontier:Areport to the President on a program for postwar scientific
research. 220 pp. [Available online at https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm.]
Byerly, R., and R. A. Pielke, 1995: The changing ecology of United States science. Science, 269, 1531–
1532, doi:10.1126/science.269.5230.1531.
Calori, I. C., & Divitini, M. (2009). Reflections on the role of technology in city-wide collaborative
learning. iJIM, 3(2), 33-39.
Cantrill, J. G. (1998). The environmental self and a sense of place: Communication foundations for
regional ecosystem management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(3), 301-318.
Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 23(1), 46-65.
Carassa, A., & Colombetti, M. (2015). Interpersonal communication as social action. Philosophy of the
Social Sciences, 45(4-5), 407-423.
Canna, S. (2013). Topics for operational considerations: Insights from neurobiology & neuropsychology
on influence and extremism—An operational perspective.
8
Cash, D.W., Borck, J.C., & Patt, A.G. (2006). Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science
and decision making: Comparative analysis of El Nina/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems.
Science, Technology & Human Values., 31(4), 465-494.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D., & . . . Mitchell, R.B.
(2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8086-8091.
DeVito, J. A. (2007). Interpersonal communication. New York: Longman Inc.
Ferguson, D.B., Rice, J., & Woodhouse, C. (2014). Linking environmental research and practice: Lessons
from the integration of climate science and water management in the Western United States. Tucson, AZ.
Climate Assessment for the Southwest. Accessed on November 5, 2015 at:
www.climas.arazona.edu/publication/report/linking-environmental-research-and-practice.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441-473.
Gabor, D. (1946). Theory of communication. Part 1: The analysis of information. Journal of the
Institution of Electrical Engineers-Part III: Radio and Communication Engineering, 93(26), 429-441.
Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic
communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 1(1), 3-35.
Hamilton, L.C. (2015). Polar facts in the age of polarization. Polar Geography. DOI:
10.1080/1088937X.2015.1051158
IPCC. (2013). Summary for policymakers. In T. F. Strocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K.
Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press.
Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The
polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate
Change. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547
Kamal, A. (2015). Thesis: Contentious information: Accounts of knowledge production, circulation and
consumption in transitional Egypt. Accessed at:
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4255&context=etd
Knapp, C. N. & Trainor, S. F. (2013). Adapting science to a warming world. Global Environmental
Change, 23, 1296-1306.
9
Keysar & Henly, 2002. Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3),
207-212.
Kotchen, M. J., & Young, O. R. (2007). Meeting the challenges of the anthropocene: Towards a science
of coupled human–biophysical systems. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 149-151.
Lee, O., Eiken, H., Kling, G, & Lee, C. (2015). A framework for prioritization, design and coordination
of Arctic Long-term Observing Networks: A perspective from the U.S. SEARCH Program. Arctic, 68(1),
1-13.
Lindenfeld, L. A., Hall, D. M., McGreavy, B., Silka, L., & Hart, D. (2012). Creating a place for
environmental communication research in sustainability science. Environmental Communication: A
Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(1), 23-43.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory. London: Sage.
Markon, C. J., Trainor, S. F., & Chapin, F. S., III. (2012). The United States national climate
assessment—Alaska technical regional report (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1379). Retrieved from U.
S. Geological Survey website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1379/
Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G, & Wall, T. (2015). Moving toward
the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. American Meteorological Society, 7, 179-191.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions
and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.
Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media mass and
interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 485-503.
Pielke, R. A., 1997: Asking the right questions: Atmospheric sciences research and societal needs.
Bull.Amer.Meteor. Soc., 78, 255–264, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078,0255:ATRQAS.2.0.CO;2.
Stern, P. C., and H. V. Fireberg, Eds., 1996: Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic
Society. National Academies Press, 249 pp.
Stokes, D. E., 1997: Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings
Institution Press, 180 pp.
Vörösmarty, C.J., Davídsson, P.A., Muir, M. A. K., & Sandford, R. W. (Eds.). (2015). Motivating
Research on the Science Communications Front: Conveying the Nature and Impacts of Rapid Change in
Ice-Dominated Earth Systems to Decision Makers and the Public. Accessed July 28, 2015 at: http://geoprose.com/pdfs/motivating_research_high.pdf
10
Wolken, J. M., Hollingsworth, T. N., Rupp, T. S., Chapin, F. S., Trainor, S. F., Barrett, T. M., . . . Yarie,
J. (2011). Evidence and implications of recent and projected climate change in Alaska’s forest
ecosystems. Ecosphere, 2(11), art124. doi:10.1890/es11-00288.1
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.