Who would have thought the dynamics of communication between science experts and policy experts needed decoding before it is communicated? During Dr. Bielak's talk, it became evident that experts seem to be insulated within their own fields and accustomed to speaking their own discipline's coded language. Consequently, whenever exchange of information is necessary to "outsiders", it is not communicated in an effective manner, or perhaps the message is not "decoded" appropriately by the receiver.
The process of communication is complex (it consists of a sender who encodes a message that is then transmitted through a medium, and then decoded by the receiver). I found it difficult at the outset to understand the term "knowledge brokering" or even its relevance to this complex process. However, it soon began to make sense that since "big C" (Communication department) takes care of catering to the larger publics, "little c" is needed to attend to communicating to more specific publics such as policy makers, decision makers, and most importantly the interested/attentive public. The quality, depth and breadth of information need to be tailored appropriately to actively engage these important audiences.
This is where it gets interesting. Knowledge brokering is the intermediary process at the level of “little c” that helps to build links by bringing relevant people together to share ideas, assisting them in understanding each other's abilities and needs, and guiding them to sources of knowledge.[1] More importantly, the role of knowledge brokers becomes essential in helping ensure that the right questions are being answered.
Beginning to think about this complex process, particularly in communicating knowledge that is confined within our various disciplines led me to reflect on the dynamics within our multi-disciplinary WWB team. Everytime I write these blogs, I struggle to ensure I am effectively communicating the intended message with enough clarity for all my colleagues (who I am sure agree is not an easy task!). It also became more obvious that a gap exists in communication as soon as we began to test our elevator speeches during the seminar, using terminology that was discipline oriented and not quite comprehensible to out-of-discipline colleagues. Lesson learnt in both cases: know your message and know your audience!
Regardless, with a little tweaking, I am certain we will all have well-polished elevator speeches that effectively communicate the right message to the right audiences (thanks to Dr. Bielak).
Here is mine - please critique:
“Hello, my name is Dona and I am a graduate student in Globalization Studies and Water Without Borders. My research aims to identify the obstacles embedded within national water policies that prevent rural populations from exercising their rights to access clean water and a healthy living standard. It will also explore policy trends at the international level that steer national water policies in the direction of excluding rural areas. Greater attention to this issue can facilitate achieving the Millenium Development Goals and improving the output of policies in the water sector. I am asking to be granted funding for this project as I am certain the findings will have the potential to be emulated and tested in different settings. I hope I captured your interest and will be glad to provide further details regarding my work.”
[1] Bielak, A.T., A. Campbell, S. Pope, K. Schaefer and L. Shaxson “From Science Communications to Knowledge Brokering: The Shift from Science Push to Policy Pull.” In Cheng, D., M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B.Schiele and S. Shi (eds), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer., 2008: 220.
Nice job Dona:
ReplyDeletethe interested and attentive public are important in my view when compared with the larger proportion that never will be. I'd say that they too are the domain of Big C, rather than little c.
As for your pitch, here is my go at it, along with an annotated version below. Again I'd be interested what people think. Different, better, too direct, worse?
“Hello, my name is Dona and I’m a grad student in Globalization Studies at McMaster as well as the Water Without Borders program, which is run jointly by Mac and the United Nations University. I’m here to ask you for funding because I believe my project is in line with your interests, will contribute to improving the output of policies in the water sector, and, ultimately, achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
My research aims to identify the obstacles embedded within national water policies that prevent rural populations from exercising their rights to access clean water and a healthy living standard. It also explores policy trends at the international level that steer national water policies toward the exclusion of rural areas. I’m confident my findings will find broad application and would be happy to chat with you further regarding the full scope and potential of the project when you have time. I certainly appreciate your consideration. Thankyou.”
And now annotated:
“Hello, my name is Dona and I’m a grad [use the language you’d use. If you’d say graduate use that. In my voice - which I've transformed your words into so really a bit of a hybrid - I’d use grad] student in Globalization Studies at McMaster as well as the Water Without Borders program, which is run jointly by Mac and the United Nations University [Need to give a taste of what WWB is. Also hooking yourself to the UN raises your stature]. I’m here to ask you for funding [Tell them why you are there up front] because I believe my project is in line with your interests, will contribute to improving the output of policies in the water sector, and, ultimately, achieving the Millennium Development Goals. [Rule of three. First point makes the link to them and their interests.]
My research aims to identify the obstacles embedded within national water policies that prevent rural populations from exercising their rights to access clean water and a healthy living standard. It also explores policy trends at the international level that steer national water policies toward the exclusion of rural areas [If you had longer you might want to indicate/reiterate why rural areas are important]. I’m confident [certain sounds over-confident or even naive] my findings will find broad application [14 words down to 6] and would be happy to chat with you further regarding the full scope and potential [tells them there is much more you could say] of the project when you have time [acknowledges they are busy people]. I certainly appreciate your consideration. Thankyou. [does not take much time to say and important to do so. Also a definitive close.]”
Alex,
ReplyDeletethank you very much for putting time into your response and giving invaluable advice. I also appreciate the annotated version and in fact find the tips useful for future reference.
I have already encountered two occasions where I resorted to putting the elevator speech to use. The more I use it the more comfortable I am with the information and the flow.
I'm glad we were able to cover this together and thanks again for the critique.
my pleasure! And don't hesitate in the future if you want to bounce anything off me
ReplyDelete