Читать книгу Communicating Science in Times of Crisis - Группа авторов - Страница 17

The COVID-19 pandemic brought many devastating heartbreaks to people across the globe. Deaths, illness, isolation, loneliness, inconvenience, bankruptcies, unemployment, quashed dreams, and fear of the unknown are just some of the more obvious issues that wreaked havoc with what was supposed to be a year of renewal—2020. At the same time, some extraordinary efforts, events, and collaborations may never have occurred without the presence of the pandemic. This section will discuss some of these special events and other silver linings that are pertinent to science communication.

At the time of this writing (January 2021), COVID-19 remained an unrelenting plague on the world. Voices ringing “this will be over in the summer (2020)” and “this will be just like the normal flu season” were muted and replaced with questions such as “how much longer can this go?”, “when will the vaccines fully kick in?”, and “will life ever return to normal?” Getting to the other side of the pandemic took longer than most people imagined, even for experts with the most optimistic viewpoints. Digital information management (Renda & Castro, 2020), strategic messaging (Ivanov & Parker, this book), new approaches to audiences (Chen et al., this book) collective efficacy (Hester, Ivanov & Parker, this book), more nuance policymaking (Childress & Clark, this book), and confronting and managing emotions related to the virus (Miller & MA, this book) are some of the strategies that are proposed to improve the chances of shrinking the pandemic to management levels.

Information technology must be included in any strategic plan for mitigating and responding to extreme events such as pandemics. We have discussed previously the largess of social media as a communication phenomenon, and social media will continue to flip that two-sided coin in issues involving controversial issues. Information technology will play a role in communications teleconferencing (such as Zoom), in drone delivery of product and services, and assisting with the diagnosis of viruses (Renda & Castro, 2020). It will take special measures of scientific communication to make possible the diffusions of these technologies on a wider scale.

Ivanov and Parker (this book) identified inoculation messages as potentially powerful strategies for supporting virus mitigation efforts. Specifically, they argued that inoculation messages could serve as methods to counter false information, address and minimize conspiracy theories, and help to resist anti-vaccination viewpoints. The value of inoculation strategies lies in their “potential to effectively counter scientifically-refuted false information (Mayorga et al., 2020). Just as inoculation messages displayed efficacy in neutralizing climate change misinformation (Cook et al., 2017; Van der Linden et al., 2017), this message strategy may hold similar promise in challenging the spread of false coronavirus information” (Ivanov & Parker, this book).

Collective action is not new to the communication landscape, although its potential influence on extreme events such as a pandemic has been understated at times. Hester, Ivanov, and Parker (this book) highlighted collective action as means for sharing responsibility for problems that are too large and complex for individuals or small groups to confront. In their words, “we have a shared responsibility to proliferate, effectively communicate, and disseminate scientific information that reduces risks for the common good of individuals in our families, communities and across the world.” One of the ways Hester et al. suggest for mobilizing collective action is through communicating compassion in science, a unique approach in science communication thinking.

Successful efforts for mitigating the effects of pandemics must take into consideration the policymaking aspect of science communication. In this book, Childress and Clark take on this responsibility and offer a number of insights for how communication, pandemics, and policy can come together to move action forward on mitigation efforts. Childress and Clark make clear that the road to be traveled will not always be smooth:

Scientific and policy experts face obstacles in getting citizens, leaders, and policymakers to receive and embrace messages about risks and how to respond to them. In our hyper-politicized climate, for example, where everything from donning a face mask to following social distancing guidelines is often viewed through a political lens …. Nonetheless, as public health experts and others endeavor to flatten, and eventually eradicate the coronavirus curve, the strength of analysis, cogency of message, and form of delivery will determine the success in informing, educating, and influencing policymakers and the public.

One of the more controversial issues during the COVID-19 pandemic was K-12 education. Both parents and students grew weary of distance learning, causing great inconvenience for working parents and creating angst for local economies who soon learned the economic impact of open and thriving schools in their communities. A chapter by Bathon and Young (this book) reported data on school officials who related accounts of confronting leadership behaviors in their schools in which they were woefully unprepared to conduct. School superintendents reported that they were out of their element and in effect were facing a “public health crisis, not an education one.” In many instances, school leaders were so frustrated with the unfamiliar context they found themselves in, they pled with government officials to just make the decision for them. According to Bathon and Young, “[w]hile school leaders are trained to be good communicators, they were poorly positioned to conduct their own local epidemiological analyses. Unfortunately, the scientific consensus was not arriving quickly enough and the public desire for answers on school reopening plans grew overwhelming, opening the door to political intrusion.” Schools did adjust and found some silver linings in the process (enhanced technology for student who had none before the pandemic, enhanced technological skill development among teachers and students, and demonstrable game plans for future “weather days”).

Children are not immune to the fallout of a pandemic; even if they are not infected with the virus, they notice events and issues around them. It is not an easy task to ask erstwhile but sometimes piercing questions about circumstances they do not understand. Cook, Sellnow, Sellnow, Parrish, and Soares (this book) reported on a platform they developed to help children understand elements of the pandemic, in particular, those whose role is to help. Meet the Helpers is a series of television programs that teaches children about emergency preparedness and the people who are there to help. Specifically, “Meet the Helpers was created to give public television stations of all types—regardless of news reporting ability—the resources needed to respond in times of crisis and support our youngest viewers. The original project included videos for the following Helpers: Doctor, Meteorologist, Paramedic, 911 Operator, Firefighter, Teacher, and Police Officer.” The programming was influenced by the theoretical notion of collective efficacy which when enacted among adults and children alike can have positive effects on children’s anti-social behaviors.

Two chapters in the book focused on healthcare and the pandemic. One was authored by Clements-Hickman, Hollan, Drew, Hinton, and Reese and took up the issue of telehealth. With increasing instances of healthcare professionals becoming motivated to reduce their risk of infection, telehealth became a favored choice for delivering care. Most indications are positive for telehealth, and Clements-Hickman et al. feel confident that this form of healthcare delivery is here to stay following the pandemic. Principle among the advantages claimed are convenience, profitability for healthcare professions (fewer no-shows), and clinical benefits. Mental healthcare and educational programming were highlighted as services that are particularly suited for telehealth. The second chapter on health was authored by Real, Gregory, Hamilton, and Zborowsky and centered on the design of healthcare systems. Their chapter describes “how frameworks of hazard control and risk perception can address pandemic responses in the design of healthcare systems … and how the pandemic has affected typical hospital design, the use of communication technology in this new context, and how communication and evidence-based design (EBD) alter in times of crisis. … . Evidence-based design is crucial for mitigating infection transmission through purposeful design.”

Two other chapters in the book focused on emotions associated with the pandemic or strategies using emotions to lessen the effects of the pandemic. Miller and Ma explored how anxiety can be pronounced following “death thought awareness” brought on by news of the pandemic and how terror management theory can be purposed to manage these anxieties. According to the authors, this approach can be relevant to a number of contexts including interpersonal communication, health communication, and crisis management. The other chapter using emotions as a means for benefiting scientific communication related to the pandemic was authored by Lillie, Pokharel, Bergstrom, and Jensen. They develop a framework entitled, The Emotion and Critical Reflection Model, that was emotion-based such that messages can be developed that are emotion-inducing and novel and will trigger critical reflection in people receiving the messages. This critical reflection helps to create a state of contemplation whereby the receiver of the message is in a state of “attitude and behavior change in line with the message.”