A new model? “Experience” instead of “information”

Hi everyone — see you in a few hours.

In the meantime, my former student Megan Halpern has just today posted a precis of the book she’s writing. In it, she argues that we have to stop thinking about science communication as “information transmission.” Instead of getting bogged down in defict/dialogue/engagement terminology, which she says all involve information transmission, she argues for thinking about science communication as “lived experience” that creates meaning (an idea taken from John Dewey).

Since it seems relevant to our conversations this week, here’s the full post:

Science Communication as Experience: a bit about the book-in-progress



1 thought on “A new model? “Experience” instead of “information””

  1. A strange coincidence that Carolyn Funk, Rick Borchelt and I discussed exactly this earlier today on our journey to beautiful Bellagio. Psychology research, I said, has clearly shown how relevant shared experiences are for building trust, way beyond the usual Luhmann-like approaches for reducing complexity in your ‘transmissions’, as Megan would probably call it. Since this surely counts for institutions just as much as for individuals, Risk Comms has shown us why so campaigns fo often fail before they have actually started properly.

    Shared experiences, as Rick was arguing if I quote him correctly here, shared experiences are exactly what we are loosing through the digitisation of our communication…

Comments are closed.