Our perspective on the stakeholders

Science communicators make scientific information accessible to wider, non-scientific audiences. When communicating with these audiences, science communicators have to decide how much they should communicate about what is known, and how much about what is still unknown or uncertain. The more detail is given to possible scientific uncertainties, the more difficult it can be to communicate the central messages.

Put simply, some members of the public attach great importance to delving as deeply as possible into the subject matter and learning about all the details and ambiguities. Conversely, others are more interested in receiving concrete and comprehensible answers to their questions.

However, it is not only members of the public who differ from one another; other stakeholders also have different views on how to deal with possible uncertainties in science communication. Scientists and authorities also have expectations of what should be communicated to public audiences. Hence, science communicators often find themselves caught between three main stakeholder groups:

The public
Scientists
Authorities

The Public

Seeks clarity and unambiguous statements about safety and technology impacts

Scientists

Expects detailed communication of uncertainties and limits of current knowledge

Authorities

Requires classification of uncertainties and communication of protective measures

“Hasn’t the safety of the technology been proven beyond doubt?” In the game, residents of the fictional community of Quantaville learn about plans to expand mobile phone coverage in their neighborhood. While they are open-minded about these plans, they want the player to make clear and unambiguous statements about the safety of the technology. However, if players report uncertainties and unanswered questions in the risk assessment, residents understandably ask critical questions.

This desire for clarity and unambiguity is also frequently evident in the practice of genuine risk communication; if this desire is disappointed, there are indications that trust in the responsible stakeholder groups may decline.

Dealing with scientific uncertainties is a central element of scientific practice. Accordingly, we understand a detailed approach to this uncertainty as characteristic of this group of actors: in the game, scientists expect the limits of current knowledge to be addressed in particular – otherwise they lose confidence in the player’s communication.

Authorities assess the potential risks of new technologies and decide on protective measures based on current scientific findings. In addition to comparable expectations regarding the communication of scientific uncertainty, we as game developers understand the classification of these uncertainties to be a second focus of this group of actors. In the game, authorities therefore prefer not only current risk assessments but also the naming of ongoing research projects and the implemented or possible protective measures for the population.

Science communicators make scientific information accessible to wider, non-scientific audiences. When communicating with these audiences, science communicators have to decide how much they should communicate about what is known, and how much about what is still unknown or uncertain. The more detail is given to possible scientific uncertainties, the more difficult it can be to communicate the central messages. Put simply, some members of the public attach great importance to delving as deeply as possible into the subject matter and learning about all the details and ambiguities. Conversely, others are more interested in receiving concrete and comprehensible answers to their questions.

However, it is not only members of the public who differ from one another; other stakeholders also have different views on how to deal with possible uncertainties in science communication. Scientists and authorities also have expectations of what should be communicated to public audiences. Hence, science communicators often find themselves caught between three main stakeholder groups:

The public
Scientists
Authorities

In the game “Talk Science,” we as game developers have implemented these three perspectives on the topic of scientific uncertainty. We based this implementation on feedback we received from members of each stakeholder group. But how exactly do these perspectives differ in the game?

The public:
“Hasn’t the safety of the technology been proven beyond doubt?” In the game, residents of the fictional community of Quantaville learn about plans to expand mobile phone coverage in their neighborhood. While they are open-minded about these plans, they want the player to make clear and unambiguous statements about the safety of the technology. However, if players report uncertainties and unanswered questions in the risk assessment, residents understandably ask critical questions.

This desire for clarity and unambiguity is also frequently evident in the practice of genuine risk communication; if this desire is disappointed, there are indications that trust in the responsible stakeholder groups may decline.

Scientists:
Dealing with scientific uncertainties is a central element of scientific practice. Accordingly, we understand a detailed approach to this uncertainty as characteristic of this group of actors: in the game, scientists expect the limits of current knowledge to be addressed in particular – otherwise they lose confidence in the player’s communication.

Authorities:
Authorities assess the potential risks of new technologies and decide on protective measures based on current scientific findings. In addition to comparable expectations regarding the communication of scientific uncertainty, we as game developers understand the classification of these uncertainties to be a second focus of this group of actors. In the game, authorities therefore prefer not only current risk assessments but also the naming of ongoing research projects and the implemented or possible protective measures for the population.