The art of helpful communication

What is the right time to communicate?

This issue is to the fore in medical matters, like the Covid-19 pandemic. If people are to be advised to change their behaviour, when should they do so? It depends on the issue, and its own timing. But we do encounter a lot of agitated exhortation whose message is 'Act Now!' Very often it is not clear what the right time actually is. We often need more information in order to make a wise decision. Very often the right response from an expert is 'I don't know…' But expertness is associated with confidence, so experts are reluctance to admit uncertainty, even when that is the right response. Again, consult your ethical principles. I found, as a teacher, that admitting you didn't know something increased your trustworthiness for your students. 'I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you next time' was a stock comment of my own all those years ago.

What is the best way to communicate?

Balance is key in this area. What appeals to you most - a 2 per cent death rate or a 98 per cent survival rate? Each comes with a different message. Truncated axes on a graph are familiar in the climate change area. Anything to drive the message home. Don't do it! Steer clear of vague words that seem to carry weight, like 'significant', 'highly unexpected', 'unlikely', and others like them. If there is a number use it, and say what it means, or what you think it should mean.

Do you know what the outcome actually is?

In my case I don't know much. I have a certain readership, which increases if I write about climate change. It is pretty stable over time. In the medical field, where those who are communicating want action in the form of changed behaviour, there can be measurable results. All in all, much depends on why you are communicating.

I'll finish with a quote from the paper, with which I agree. The authors warn that there are failures in communication, and go on to say this:

There may also be evidence of a corresponding turn towards uncritical thinking - whether around unproven medical interventions, conspiracy theories, or poor-quality scientific pre-prints and papers. We should reflect honestly on the part played in these failures by overconfidence, dogmatism, a lack of humility about the boundaries of our knowledge, a lack of transparency about conflicts of interest and motives, the tendency to assert false dichotomies rather than recognise shades of grey, an 'us and them' and 'information deficit model' of communication, politicisation, motivated reasoning, and so on.

Good communication, of anything, is not straightforward. Every teacher learns this truth quickly. But what I gained from the paper has been a real help. I hope it helps others as well.