Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article discusses three ethical considerations science communicators face when considering narrative as a communication technique for science policy contexts: (a) What is the underlying purpose of using narrative: comprehension or persuasion? (b) What are the appropriate levels of accuracy to maintain? (c) Should narrative be used at all? These considerations intersect with perceptions of the appropriate roles of communication and of scientists within democracy. By providing a clearer articulation of these ethical considerations, the authors hope that narrative can become a more useful communication technique toward informed science policy decisions.

Keywords

science communication narrative policy ethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Advancing Science Serving Society. (2009). Providing tools for scientists and engineers, “communicating science” program expands its reach. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1019engagement.shtml

Albrecht

J. E.

Obrien

E. J.

(1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061-1070. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.106110.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1061

Appel

Richter

(2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10, 113-134. doi:10.108/1521326070130119410.108/15213260701301194

Baker

J. P.

(2008). Mercury, vaccines, and autism: One controversy, three histories. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 244-253. doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.11315910.2105/ajph.2007.113159

Barriga

C. A.

Shapiro

M. A.

Fernandez

M. L.

(2010). Science information in fictional movies: Effects of context and gender. Science Communication, 32, 3-24. doi:10.1177/107554700934033810.1177/1075547009340338

Besley

J. C.

Kramer

V. L.

Yao

Toumey

(2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30(2), 209-235. doi:10.1177/107554700832467010.1177/1075547008324670

Blum

Knudson

Henig

R. M.

(2006). A field guide for science writers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Braybrooke

(1967). Skepticism of wants, and certain subversive effects of corporations on American values. In Sidney

(Ed.), Human values and economic policy. New York: New York University Press.

Brodie

Foehr

Rideout

Baer

Miller

Flournoy

Altman

(2001). Communicating health information through the entertainment media. Health Affairs, 20(1), 192-199. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.1.19210.1377/hlthaff.20.1.192

10.

Bruner

(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Bruner

(1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21. doi:10.1086/44861910.1086/448619

12.

Busselle

R. W.

Bilandzic

(2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18, 255-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x

13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Entertainment education. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/ToolsTemplates/EntertainmentEd/

14.

Clarke

C. E.

(2008). A question of balance: The autism-vaccine controversy in the British and American elite press. Science Communication, 30, 77-107. doi:10.1177/107554700832026210.1177/1075547008320262

15.

Cobb

M. D.

(2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239. doi:10.1177/107554700528147310.1177/1075547005281473

16.

Cook

D. M.

Boyd

E. A.

Grossmann

Bero

L. A.

(2007). Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press. Plos One, 2(12), e1266. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.000126610.1371/journal.pone.0001266

17.

Cook

Robbins

P. T.

Pieri

(2006). “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 5-29. doi:10.1177/096366250605875610.1177/0963662506058756

18.

Crisp

(1987). Persuasive advertising, autonomy, and the creation of desire. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 413-418. doi:10.1007/bf0038289810.1007/bf00382898

19.

Curtis

(1994). Narrative form and normative force: Baconian storytelling in popular science. Social Studies of Science, 24, 419-461. doi:10.1177/03063127940240030110.1177/030631279402400301

20.

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2010). The role of causality in information acceptance in narratives: An example from science communication. Communication Research, 37, 857-875. doi:10.1177/009365021036268310.1177/0093650210362683

21.

Dal Cin

Zanna

M. P.

Fong

G. T.

(2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In Knowles

Linn

(Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175-191). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Daniels

(1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 256-282. doi:10.2307/202588110.2307/2025881

23.

Davis

J. J.

(1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communication. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 285-299.

24.

de Cheveigne

(2002). Biotechnology policy: Can France move from centralized decision making to citizens’ governance? Science Communication, 24, 162-172. doi:10.1177/10755470223784210.1177/107554702237842

25.

de Wit

J. B. F.

Das

Vet

(2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27, 110-115. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.11010.1037/0278-6133.27.1.110

26.

Dickson

(2001). Weaving a social web: The Internet promises to revolutionize public engagement with science and technology. Nature, 414(6864), 587-587. doi:10.1038/414587a10.1038/414587a

27.

Durfee

J. L.

(2006). “Social change” and “status quo” framing effects on risk perception: An exploratory experiment. Science Communication, 27, 459-495. doi:10.1177/107754700528533410.1177/1077547005285334

28.

Einsiedel

(2008). Public engagement and dialogue: A research review. In Bucchi

Smart

(Eds.), Handbook of public communication on science and technology (pp. 173-184). London, England: Routledge.

29.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

30.

Federal Communications Commission. (1963). Report and order. In Federal Communications Commission reports (Vol. 34, pp. 834-835). Washington, DC: Author.

31.

Felman

(1989). Narrative as testimony: Camus’s The Plague. In Phelan

(Ed.), Reading narrative: Form, ethics, ideology (pp. 250-271). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

32.

Fisher

W. R.

(1984). Narration as a human-communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22.

33.

Forrest

(2001). The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In Pennock

R. T.

(Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics (pp. 5-53). Cambridge: MIT Press.

34.

Gerrig

R. J.

(1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

35.

Gibson

Zillmann

(1994). Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports: Perceptions of issues and personal consequences. Communication Research, 21, 603-624. doi:10.1177/00936509402100500310.1177/009365094021005003

36.

Golding

Krimsky

Plough

(1992). Evaluating risk communication: Narrative vs technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Analysis, 12, 27-35. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01304.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01304.x

37.

Graesser

A. C.

Olde

Klettke

(2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In Green

M. C.

Strange

J. J.

Brock

T. C.

(Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 229-262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Graesser

A. C.

Singer

Trabasso

(1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.101.3.37110.1037//0033-295X.101.3.371

39.

Green

M. C.

(2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247-266. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3802_510.1207/s15326950dp3802_5

40.

Green

M. C.

(2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163-S183. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x

41.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.70110.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

42.

Hall

A. E.

(2003). Reading realism: Audiences’ evaluations of the reality of media texts. Journal of Communication, 53, 624-641. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02914.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02914.x

43.

Harris

O’Conner

(2005, June 25). On autism’s cause, it’s parents vs. research. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/science/25autism.html

44.

Harter

L. M.

Bochner

A. P.

(2009). Healing through stories: A special issue on narrative medicine. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 113-117. doi:10.1080/0090988090279227110.1080/00909880902792271

45.

Hertog

J. K.

McLeod

D. M.

(2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In Reese

Gandy

Grant

(Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding on the social world (pp. 139-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

46.

Hinyard

L. J.

Kreuter

M. W.

(2007). Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 777-792. doi:10.1177/109019810629196310.1177/1090198106291963

47.

Horner

Minifie

F. D.

(2011). Research ethics II: Mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, S330-S345. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0264)10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0264)

48.

Irwin

Michael

(2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

49.

Kant

(1981). Grounding for the metaphysics or morals ( Ellington

J. W.

, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

50.

Kaup

Foss

(2005). Detecting and processing inconsistencies in narrative comprehension. In Rosen

(Ed.), Trends in experimental psychology research (pp. 67-90). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

51.

Kreiswirth

(1992). Trusting the tale: The narrativist turn in the human sciences. New Literary History, 23, 629-657. doi:10.2307/46922310.2307/469223

52.

Krulwich

(2008, July 29). Tell me a story [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2008/jul/29/tell-me-a-story/

53.

Leydesdorff

Hellsten

(2005). Metaphors and diaphors in science communication. Science Communication, 27, 64-99. doi:10.1177/107554700527834610.1177/1075547005278346

54.

Liu

Priest

S. H.

(2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 704-718. doi:10.1177/096366250809762510.1177/0963662508097625

55.

Longacre

(1983). The grammar of discourse. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

56.

Marsh

E. J.

Meade

M. L.

Roediger

H. L.

(2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 519-536. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00092-510.1016/S0749-596X(03)00092-5

57.

Martin

D. W.

(2008). Doing psychology experiments (7th ed.). Singapore: Wadsworth.

58.

McInerney

Bird

Nucci

(2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science Communication, 26, 44-74. doi:10.1177/107554700426702410.1177/1075547004267024

59.

Meyer

Sandoe

(2012). Going public: Good scientific conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 173-197. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9247-x10.1007/s11948-010-9247-x

60.

Miller

J. D.

Kimmel

(2001). Biomedical communications: Purposes, audiences, and strategies. New York, NY: John Wiley.

61.

Miller

J. D.

Pardo

Niwa

(1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Chicago, IL: Chicago Academy of Sciences.

62.

Mink

L. O.

(1978). Narrative form as a cognitive instrument. In Canary

R. H.

(Ed.), The writing of history (pp. 129-149). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

63.

Mooney

(2005). The republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books.

64.

Moyer-Guse

Nabi

R. L.

(2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26-52. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x

65.

Nebenzahl

I. D.

Jaffe

E. D.

(1998). Ethical dimensions of advertising executions. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 805-815. doi:10.1023/a:100585081284510.1023/a:1005850812845

66.

Nelson

M. P.

Vucetich

J. A.

(2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23, 1090-1101. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x

67.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). The ethics of framing science. In Nerlich

Larson

Elliott

(Eds.), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions (pp. 51-73). London, England: Ashgate.

68.

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. doi:10.3732/ajb.090004110.3732/ajb.0900041

69.

Oatley

(1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3, 101-117. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.10110.1037/1089-2680.3.2.101

70.

Pielke

R. A.

(2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Pimple

(2002). Six domains of research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 191-205. doi:10.1007/s11948-002-0018-110.1007/s11948-002-0018-1

72.

Powell

Kleinman

D. L.

(2008). Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 329-348. doi:10.1177/096366250606800010.1177/0963662506068000

73.

Rachels

(2007). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

74.

Read

S. J.

Miller

L. C.

(1995). Stories are fundamental to meaning and memory: For social creatures, could it be otherwise? In Wyer

(Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 139-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

75.

The Royal Society. (2006). Factors affecting science communication. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=5232

76.

Schank

R. C.

Abelson

(1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In Schank

Abelson

(Eds.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 1-86). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

77.

Scheufele

D. A.

(1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

78.

Scott

L. M.

(1995). Representation and narrative: A commentary on Schank and Abelson’s “Knowledge and Memory.” In Wyer

(Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 165-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

79.

Shanahan

McComas

(1999). Nature stories: Depictions of the environment and their effects. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

80.

Slater

M. D.

Rouner

(2002). Entertainment—education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173-191. doi:10.1093/ct/12.2.17310.1093/ct/12.2.173

81.

Slater

M. D.

Rouner

Long

(2006). Television dramas and support for controversial public policies: Effects and mechanisms. Journal of Communication, 56, 235-252. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00017.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00017.x

82.

Society of Professional Journalists. (2012). SPJ code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

83.

Strange

J. J.

(2002). How fictional tales wag real-world beliefs. In Green

Strange

Brock

(Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 263-286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

84.

Strange

J. J.

Leung

C. C.

(1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem’s urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 436-449. doi:10.1177/014616729902500400410.1177/0146167299025004004

85.

Vaughan

P. W.

Rogers

E. M.

Singhal

Swalehe

R. M.

(2000). Entertainment-education and HIV/AIDS prevention: A field experiment in Tanzania. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 81-100. doi:10.1080/1081073005001957310.1080/10810730050019573

86.

Volti

(2009). Society and technological change (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

87.

Walker

Simmons

Irwin

Wynne

(1999). Risk communication, public participation and the Seveso II directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 65, 179-190. doi:10.1016/s0304-3894(98)00262-310.1016/s0304-3894(98)00262-3

88.

Winterbottom

Bekker

H. L.

Conner

Mooney

(2008). Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 2079-2088. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.03710.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.037

89.

Zillmann

(2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, S221-S237. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x

90.

Zimmer

(2011). Evolution. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Ethical Considerations of Using Narrative to Communicate Science

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References