Page 28 - i1052-5173-28-3-4

2017 GSA PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
on good working relationships with indi-
vidual scientists. We can help to connect
them. We might consider how we can
become involved as a Society in activities
that broaden the public audience to include
the sector that is not typically reached by
traditional outreach approaches (e.g.,
museum exhibits, websites, science docu-
mentaries; Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009). Or
we can find ways to better engage the pub-
lic by addressing issues through the per-
spective of shared ideology. Three GSA
members recently initiated a dialogue for
this type of paradigm shift in science
advocacy (Davidson et al., 2017). And I’ll
admit, I still hope to see one of our col-
leagues as the guest on one of my favorite
late-night comedy shows.
3. Taking a Leadership Role in a
Geoscience Culture Change
I referred previously to three opportuni-
ties. The third is to assume a leadership
position in changing the culture in our
workplace. This culture change requires
overcoming the negative stigma that we
hold regarding public engagement (Mellor,
2010; Liang et al., 2014). In academia, we
can add science communication training to
our curriculum. Recall the bygone days
when graduate programs had a language
requirement? Well, consider science com-
munication training as making the next
generation “bilingual” (as coined by Jane
Lubchenco [2015])—that is, having the
skills to captivate the public by effectively way or another. This relevance, however,
translating complex scientific knowledge.
There are well-regarded professional
training and engagement workshops, such
as those offered by AAAS or COMPASS,
which can seed future in-house training
efforts in the workplace, whether it be aca-
demia, industry, government, or NGOs,
thus reaching out to many. I want to share
one of my favorite out-of-the box exam-
ples. It took just three Ph.D. students, who
self-proclaim to have been “frustrated with
the public perception of science,” to insti-
gate a university-wide initiative in cutting- policy office in Washington, D.C.
edge science communication at Carnegie
Mellon University (Shorr et al., 2013). The
program offers a curriculum of workshops
and seminars utilizing empirical knowl-
edge on how modern societies interpret
science-based debates in order to train the
next generation of scientists to be effective may choose to “engage” in various ways or
communicators. But here’s the cool thing:
this initiative, which involves students,
faculty, administrators, science
28
communicators, and journalists, was an
outgrowth of these students’ submission to
the NSF Graduate Education Challenge
that I mentioned earlier. Now that is what I
call being empowered!
Even when we acknowledge the value of
public communication and the efforts
needed to do so, there is little protocol for
legitimizing them (e.g., Lubchenco, 2017).
GSA, through its platforms for public
engagement, serves as a beacon of support
for such activities. But it also requires that
individual members be advocates at their
institutions. As individuals we need to
look for ways to formally recognize invest-
ments in public engagement and to educate
administrators as to the importance of
such endeavors, clearly articulating that
such efforts do not come at the expense of
scholarly activities, which are perceived as
more important. Doctoral candidate Daniel
Pham provides a poignant perspective on
this issue and the overall importance of
public engagement to young scientists and
future science research (Pham, 2016).
I offer one final point. That is, each of us
needs to constantly reevaluate the rele-
vance of the science in which we are
engaged and find ways to effectively com-
municate that message. My point is not to
advocate for the need for “the relevancy of
our work” but rather to stress that every
one of us invests in work-related or train-
ing efforts that benefit humanity in one
is not always intuitive. As a sedimentary
geologist and geochemist interested in
deep-time paleoclimatology, establishing
the relevance has been all too often hard
earned. But I never miss the opportunity to
view my large classes of undergraduates as
keen future voters receptive to new ideas.
And I’ve pitched the relevance of the deep-
time geologic record to climate change
discussions to the public and to federal
funding agencies (National Research
Council, 2011), as well as on the Hill
through opportunities provided by GSA’s
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
I reiterate GSA’s commitment to pro-
moting the geosciences through effective
public engagement. As individuals you
to differing degrees, but it is our collective
responsibility to bridge the “gap” through
championing the efforts put forth by our
colleagues and students. And we can all
GSA Today | March-April 2018
actively promote informed conversations
within and beyond our Society. As my
graduate students and family know all too
well, I’m a big fan of President Abraham
Lincoln. There is wisdom in his words
“Public sentiment is everything. With pub-
lic sentiment, nothing can fail, without it,
nothing can succeed” (A. Lincoln as
recorded in Angle, 1991).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks to Joseph White (Baylor Univ.),
Chris Fedo (Univ. of Tennessee), Tessa Hill (Univ.
of California, Davis), and Kasey White (GSA
geoscience policy office) for engaging and eye-
opening discussions. Thanks also to Christa
Stratton, Director for Education, Communications,
and Outreach at GSA, for her help in developing
aspects of this address and to Eldridge and
Judy Moores and David Osleger, whose feedback
greatly improved its effectiveness.
REFERENCES CITED
Angle, P.M., ed., 1991, Complete Lincoln-Douglas
Debates of 1858: Chicago, Illinois, University of
Chicago Press, 114 p.
Bahr, J.M., 2010, O brave new world: Geoscientists
in an emerging green economy: GSA Today,
v. 20, no. 1, p. 12–14, https://doi.org/10.1130/
GSATPA09.1.
Bergan, D., 2009, Does grassroots lobbying work?:
American Politics Research, v. 37, p. 327–352,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08326967.
Besley, J.C., and Nisbet, M., 2011, How scientists
view the public, the media and the political pro-
cess: Public Understanding of Science, v. 22,
no. 6, p. 644–659, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963662511418743.
Braman, D., Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M.,
and Slovic, P., 2012, The polarizing impact of
science literacy and numeracy on perceived
climate change risks: Nature Climate Change,
v. 2, p. 732–735, https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate1547.
Davidson, G.R., Hill, C.A., and Wolgemuth, K.,
2017, The need for a paradigm shift in science
advocacy: GSA Today, v. 27, no. 7, p. 58–59,
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG280GW.1.
Davis, G.H., 2013, Where our deepest passions
intersect the world’s compelling needs: GSA
Today, v. 23, no. 1, p. 14–18.
Geissman, J., 2012, The importance of the global
professoriate in the geosciences—The students
we are teaching, and learn from, today may
represent the last great hope: GSA Today, v. 22,
no. 1, p. 12–16.
Heagerty, B., 2015, Commentary: Dissemination
does not equal public engagement: The Journal
of Neuroscience, v. 35, p. 4483–4486, https://
doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4408-14.2015.
Kahan, D., 2010, Fixing the communication failure:
Nature, v. 463, p. 296–297, https://doi.org/
10.1038/463296a.
Liang, X., Su, L.Y.-F., Yeo, S.K., Scheufele, D.A.,
Brossard, D., Xenos, M., Nealey, P., and Corley,
E.A., 2014, Building buzz: (Scientists) commu-
nicating science in new media environments:
Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly,