The European Geoscience Union’s
General Assembly gathers over 11,000 people including students, academics, the
media, those in industry and policy makers. Of these 11,000 there are a
significant number of people working on various aspects of natural hazards, as
seen in the broad range of talks and sessions in this division. Sessions
focused on the physics and mechanics of a broad range of hazard events, forecasting
and prediction, early warning tools, communication and geoethics and much more.
One session that took place was a
‘Great Debate’ on the role and responsibilities of geoscientists for warning and
mitigation of natural disasters. The debate panel included representatives from
insurance, academia and the EU Civil Protection Agency. This discussion was one
that came up several times over my week, in various sessions, discussions and
often over a glass or two of wine.
Many natural disasters can be prevented
or the impacts significantly reduced, and geoscientists have a crucial role to
play within this work. If geoscientists want to be most effective within this
important field they must strengthen their communication skills, and think
about how they can better ensure their knowledge and information is presented
to the public, policy makers and politicians. But the question is not only how
can it be presented, it is how can the information be presented well and
effectively.
 |
(Tanzania)
Communication to Local Stakeholders |
It was frustrating, and at times
very sad, to hear some of the comments in this debate. For example, a
suggestion that geoscientists should make better use of open-source journals
was put forward as a way to make sure our information gets through to the public.
Whilst open-source is very helpful for many reasons, I don’t think that this is
a solution at all to the great communication divide between scientists and the
public. The language, format and style of scientific papers – be they open
source or pay-to-access – is focused on communicating information to their
peers. I have studied geology for over 10 years now and yet pick up many papers
and struggle to understand what they are saying and how the research is
relevant. Writing for open-source, or placing our technical papers on personal
websites (which was also suggested) will give geoscientists access to more
information. It will not, as is desperately needed, improve communication of
this essential knowledge to other key stakeholders. We need to see a significant
change in the mentality of scientists to incorporate, value and prize effective
public engagement and outreach into their research projects. A paradigm shift
from ‘come look at what we’re doing’ to ‘let us come to you and show you what
we are doing’ is absolutely foundational to improved communication.
 |
Barriers to Communication
(Adapted from Liverman, 2010 -
Geophysical Hazards:Minimizing Risk,
Maximizing Awareness [Ed. Tom Beer]) |
I believe we can increase the
effectiveness of geoscientists’ contribution within disaster risk reduction
(DRR) through a number of developments to geoscience courses. Whilst students
are not by any means the only people working within DRR, we can help overcome
some of the communication barriers (highlighted in the diagram to the left, adapted from Liverman, 2000) by changing the way graduates approach and
enter into this work. Such developments include an overhaul of professional
skills modules in undergraduate and postgraduate geoscience courses. These must
include training in how to communicate to non-specialists or multi-disciplinary
audiences, training in how to write a press release or general-interest
article, and some basic teaching on issues such as community participation and
sustainability.
Whilst I am not suggesting that these are the only steps that must be taken - they are important and will, I believe, enable those within the exciting field of geoscience to make a positive and greater contribution.
