From Joe Cone (Oregon Sea Grant):

Decision Making Model

Here’s a model that in a linear form outlines the key participants in decision making; it’s the underlying model of communication that Oregon used in our 2007-10 project funded by the NOAA Climate Program Office.

BACKGROUND: Communicating with non-specialists about – ultimately -- the risks associated with climate change, is categorically a “risk communication” challenge. So our Oregon project began with a well-established approach to risk communication as the default framework of our project design – the approach developed by Morgan and colleagues (published in 2002). Their risk communication model derives from the study of behavioral decision making and develops communication that helps the audience make decisions but does not try to persuade. That’s “nonpersuasive” not “unpersuasive.” (This particular graphic was adapted from the work of one of the Morgan colleagues.)

KEY FEATURES: effective communication of risk – say climate risk – involves “domain scientists” (at the left) – in this case, climate scientists. And it involves communicators, at the right. The climate scientists represent the research by developing and providing science based information. The communicators design appropriate materials and engage users. So far, typical. What’s different is the middle boxes and the prominence of users. Critically, the model shows that additional social research is needed to understand not only the motivators but also the barrier/constraints of users/stakeholders/decision-makers. In addition out of all the [climate] science that a scientist might want to present to users, social researchers [optimally, decision researchers] consider both the behavioral research and the climate science to help determine what science is relevant to the decisions the users want to make.

TAKE HOME: The Morgan et al. risk communication approach is different from much public communication about science, especially from some resource agencies, in its focus on what decisions the user or audience wishes to make, rather than on what the “experts” might like to tell them. The ethical foundation of such so-called “nonpersuasive” communication – which is very compatible with the norms of university outreach -- is a respect for and trust in the receiver of the communication. That receiver/user is actually central to the model.