Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture

responsibility and although they may lack training, some scientists understand stakeholder perceptions and modify their terminology based on the group they are talking to. We discuss what we can learn from these successful communication efforts to further support scientists’ communication efforts. Background Messenger and knowledge deficit model As messengers, climate scientists have long engaged in communications and outreach with public audiences, serving as direct sources of scientific information. More scientists are inter- acting with public audiences both directly and indirectly through the mass media. A survey of 3,748 U.S.-based scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of sci- ence found almost all (98%) scientists have interacted with citizens from time to time and over half (51%) have communicated research findings with reporters [21]. Although more scientists are making efforts to communicate with public audiences and the media through various modes of communication [22], not all scientists are experts in the science behind effective communication [23]. This becomes apparent when exploring models of communication between scientists (information sources or messengers) and the public (intended audience or recipients of the message). Science communication has previously been understood as a one- way flow of information from a source to an audience, where communicators assume audi- ences are ignorant to science issues–the knowledge deficit model. However, research suggests

effective communication of science is more complex, with many different social factors impacting an audience’s receptiveness of scientific information [24]. Effective communication also requires methods grounded in social science research [25–27], some of which has resulted in newer understandings of the transfer of information between sources and intended audi- ences (e.g., a model of public engagement [28]). Despite this evidence, many scientists still defer to the knowledge deficit model of communication [29], implying some may not always be strategic about their communication. In the context of climate scientists as messengers of climate change science to agricultural stakeholders, utilizing the knowledge deficit model to inform communication may negatively impact efforts to move agricultural stakeholders towards a consensus on the occurrence of climate change and its causes, as communication attempts designed to increase knowledge and gain support for a science issue tend to be inef- fective [30]. Science communication training Some critics have suggested scientists should only conduct research [31]; however, scientists are key actors in the communication of their research to lay audiences [26], are encouraged to increase their presence in the public sphere [32] and increasing evidence suggests scientists see themselves in an advocacy role [22]. Recommendations to become an effective communicator are often distilled into three main messages: participate in formal communication training,

understand the audience, and frame the message appropriately [26, 33–35]. Communication training is important for scientists since training can enhance successful communication between scientists and stakeholder groups [36]. Scientists should be trained in how to commu- nicate their science to the public, and that, in general, scientists do not receive formal science communication training [34, 35]. In 2013, 24 out of the 27 climate change adaptation plans from U.S. federal agencies identified a need for communication research and training for sci- entists [37]. Specifically, communication training should be targeted at climate scientists (or scientists doing climate-related work) to promote successful communication [20, 38]. PLOS ONE Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269927 August 2, 2022 3 / 22