Communicating about sustainable urban water management: community and professional perspectives on water-related terminology

被引:14
作者
Dean, Angela J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Fielding, Kelly S. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Jamalludin, Effin [3 ]
Newton, Fiona J. [4 ]
Ross, Helen [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Sch Commun & Arts, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, CRC Water Sensit Cities, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Sch Psychol, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
[4] Monash Univ, Monash Business Sch, Dept Mkt, Caulfield, Australia
[5] Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
关键词
Communication; community engagement; information seeking; jargon; technical terminology; socio-technical systems; HEALTH INFORMATION-SEEKING; TECHNICAL LANGUAGE; SOCIAL PROJECTION; SCIENCE; PREDICTORS; ATTITUDES; BEHAVIOR; JARGON; CONSERVATION; SCIENTISTS;
D O I
10.1080/1573062X.2018.1483523
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
As approaches to water management begin to encompass broader social and environmental goals, new technical terms have entered the field of water management. Effective communication across professional disciplines, and with community stakeholders, is essential for sustainable urban water management. However, use of technical terminology has the potential to undermine effectiveness of communication. We surveyed professionals and community members to examine these issues. Findings indicate that water-related technical terms may not be well understood by the community. Professionals most likely to overestimate community understanding were influenced by their own understanding rather than experience with communities. For communities, individuals with poor topic knowledge or low education were less likely to seek information about terms, highlighting the importance of reducing reliance on technical terms when collaborating with diverse stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页码:371 / 380
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1995, SCI COMMUN, DOI 10.1177/1075547095016003003
[2]   An Instrument for Assessing Scientists' Written Skills in Public Communication of Science [J].
Baram-Tsabari, Ayelet ;
Lewenstein, Bruce V. .
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2013, 35 (01) :56-85
[3]   An analysis of the readability characteristics of oral health information literature available to the public in Tasmania, Australia [J].
Barnett, Tony ;
Hoang, Ha ;
Furlan, Ashlea .
BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2016, 16
[4]   On the Social Acceptability of Behavior-Analytic Terms: Crowdsourced Comparisons of Lay and Technical Language [J].
Becirevic, Amel ;
Critchfield, Thomas S. ;
Reed, Derek D. .
BEHAVIOR ANALYST, 2016, 39 (02) :305-317
[5]   What Science Communication Scholars Think About Training Scientists to Communicate [J].
Besley, John C. ;
Tanner, Andrea H. .
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2011, 33 (02) :239-263
[6]   Well, you have hepatic metastases: Use of technical language by medical students in simulated patient interviews [J].
Bourquin, Celine ;
Stiefel, Friedrich ;
Mast, Marianne Schmid ;
Bonvin, Raphael ;
Berney, Alexandre .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2015, 98 (03) :323-330
[7]   The effects of sentence-level context, prior word knowledge, and need for cognition on information processing of technical language in print ads [J].
Bradley, SD ;
Meeds, R .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 14 (03) :291-302
[8]   Better Communication = Better Teams: A Communication Exercise to Improve Team Performance [J].
Brewer, Edward C. ;
Holmes, Terence L. .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, 2016, 59 (03) :288-298
[9]   Lay understanding of terms used in cancer consultations [J].
Chapman, K ;
Abraham, C ;
Jenkins, V ;
Fallowfield, L .
PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2003, 12 (06) :557-566
[10]   What do Buzzwords do for Development Policy? A critical look at 'participation', 'empowerment' and 'poverty reduction' [J].
Cornwall, A ;
Brock, K .
THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY, 2005, 26 (07) :1043-1060