Cultural Context in Science Communication

During my many years as a disease detective at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), deploying across the globe to respond to public health emergencies and disasters, I’ve seen a recurring pattern. It’s easy—and common—to assume that those of us arriving from overseas are the “real experts,” while those on the ground are not. This mindset creates a false dichotomy between the “helper” and the “helped.” What we need to realize is this: while we may be scientific experts, they are experts too. Even if they don’t have advanced degrees or technical training, they are experts in their culture, their community, and their context. Effective communication with stakeholders requires both humility (acknowledging our strengths without arrogance) and modesty (acknowledging our limitations). Here are 10 lessons scientists can learn from these mistakes when engaging with stakeholders: 1️⃣ Listen First, Speak Second Before sharing your expertise, take the time to listen. Stakeholders often have invaluable insights that can shape your approach. 2️⃣ Acknowledge Local Expertise Even if you’re the scientific expert, remember that stakeholders are experts in their own right. Whether it’s a community leader or a local health worker, their knowledge of the context is irreplaceable. 3️⃣ Avoid a “Savior Complex” The belief that you’re the only one who can solve the problem is not only arrogant but also counterproductive. Collaboration, not domination, is key. 4️⃣ Be Culturally Sensitive Understanding and respecting cultural nuances is critical. Criticism without understanding can come across as tone-deaf and disrespectful, eroding trust. 5️⃣  Build Bridges, Not Walls Effective communication is about finding common ground. We must strive to connect, not alienate. 6️⃣ Be Transparent About Limitations No one has all the answers. Admitting what you don’t know builds credibility and trust. Stakeholders appreciate honesty over false confidence, worse yet, having the confidence of the competent without the competence. 7️⃣ Tailor Your Message One-size-fits-all communication rarely works. Adapt your message to your audience’s needs, values, and priorities. 8️⃣ Avoid Overpromising Setting unrealistic expectations can lead to disappointment and mistrust. Be clear about what you can and cannot achieve. 9️⃣ Foster Long-Term Relationships Trust is built over time. We can nurture enduring partnerships by showing consistent respect and collaboration. 🔟 Reflect and Adapt After every interaction, ask yourself: Did I truly engage with stakeholders, or did I talk over them? Continuous self-reflection is essential for growth. The Bottom Line Communication is not just about sharing information; it’s about building relationships and trust. The best solutions emerge not from a single expert but from the collective wisdom of many. Please reshare so others may benefit ♻️ #Chisquares #ScienceCommunication #StakeholderEngagement #Leadership #Collaboration

96% of our knowledge of humans comes from 12% of the world's cultural contexts. Our understanding of humans needs to stop being so WEIRD. Western. Educated. Industrialized. Rich. Democratic. The study of human development specifically has a representation crisis: A 2023 study found that 84% of studies relied exclusively on data from geographical regions inhabited by less than 7% of the world’s population. This is more than just bad science. These biases in our research directly shape how we define “good” babies/parents: ⇢ Attachment measures standardized on Western families pathologize cultural caregiving practices around the world ⇢ Developmental assessments fail to account for cultural variation in milestones ⇢ Mental health screening tools assume nuclear families and individualistic values Here's your action item. First, ask yourself: Leaders: Do your policies account for diverse family structures and ways of learning? Maternal care providers: How are your assessment tools validated across cultures? Policymakers: Whose development is centered in your early childhood initiatives? Researchers: Who designs your research questions and methods? Now, apply 5 ways to combat these biases: 1. Re-examine your measurement tools - Validate assessments across cultures - let cultural experts lead tool development - Question Western-centric assumptions 2. Challenge your frameworks - Question "universal" theories - Consider cultural epistemologies - Recognize multiple pathways 3. Transform your training - Include cultural humility education - Center diverse family structures - Challenge deficit-based perspectives 4. Adjust your implementation - Allow flexible delivery methods - Adapt to local caregiving practices - Support indigenous knowledge systems 5. Share power - Let communities lead research design - Support community-led initiatives - Redistribute research resources Remember: Good science requires representation. Better representation creates better science. ↓ What’s an example from your work that made you question whether an approach was actually inclusive? How have you overcome cultural biases? - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • For more on research + babies ↓ Follow Emily Little, PhD Join my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/gCJa6pM5

Atherton et al. (2023) offer a compelling argument for shifting toward a sociocultural model of disability, highlighting how culture shapes the way autism is experienced, recognized, and supported. Having spent the summer in Japan, I’ve been reflecting on how autism is perceived and supported in different cultural contexts. Beyond what I observed in daily life and heard from families and professionals, this article reinforced what I was starting to sense — that our dominant models of autism are deeply shaped by Western norms. The authors argue that what we label as “autistic” may simply reflect a mismatch between cultural expectations and neurodivergent behaviors. Using Japan as a contrasting case, they show how many characteristics viewed as atypical in the West—such as reduced eye contact, slower conversational pace, or preference for scripted interactions—align more closely with mainstream Japanese norms. The DSM-5 criteria for autism were developed almost entirely by Western experts, rooted in Western norms (e.g., fast-paced verbal communication, eye contact, self-expression). This becomes problematic when applied globally, especially in collectivist, high-context cultures like Japan where communication, emotional expression, and behavior follow different expectations. In Japan, where communication is often indirect and reliant on shared context, behaviors such as limited verbal reciprocity or reduced self-disclosure (common in autistic individuals) may be less noticeable. Yet, this can also backfire, as autistic individuals may struggle with the implicit, context-heavy nature of Japanese communication. Some autistic traits, like attention to detail, may even be advantageous in Japan. Despite this, autism stigma is higher in Japan than in the U.S., likely due to cultural expectations of conformity. Japanese students, even after autism-awareness interventions, held more negative attitudes than their American counterparts (If interested, read more about stigma in my newer article: https://rdcu.be/ekNMx) I believe that we must ask: ---How is difference interpreted in a specific culture? What kinds of behavior are actually disabling within that culture? Can we co-create culturally relevant tools with communities rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model? 👉 Read the article here: https://lnkd.in/gr-Q3nMq #Autism #AutisticVoices #Neurodiversity #CrossCulturalPsychology #DisabilityStudies #SocioculturalModel #GlobalPerspectives #AutismResearch #InclusiveResearch #CulturalCompetence #AutismAndCulture #Japan #SocialModelOfDisability #CommunityEngagedResearch #ResearchEquity #StigmaReduction #DevelopmentalPsychology #EducationResearch #MentalHealthEquity #Intersectionality

Jen Briselli’s 'Demanufacturing Doubt' thesis tackles the issue of science communication in today’s polarized world, where empirical facts often clash with public skepticism. Jen argues that simply presenting data is ineffective in persuading audiences who are influenced by emotional narratives and cultural values. She emphasizes that effective science communication must incorporate rhetorical strategies that appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos—credibility, emotion, and logic—rather than just relying on factual information. A key concept in Jen’s thesis is the idea of “identity-protective cognition,” where people interpret scientific data in ways that affirm their pre-existing cultural worldviews. If you follow me you know I speak about this regularly. This is why, traditional methods of education and fact-sharing fail to shift beliefs on contentious topics like climate change and vaccines. By understanding audience values, communicators can frame science in ways that resonate emotionally and align with these worldviews, making facts more relatable and persuasive. Central to all I do as a storyteller is Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey. I read the 'Power of Myth' and explored the Mono-myth concept that permeates all human stories, religions and cultures when I was around age 16. That and Carl Jung's 'Man and His Symbols' changed my life and pushed me toward this work. So you can imagine my delight when I read Jen also explores the role of storytelling in science communication, suggesting that narratives like the 'Hero’s Journey' can be powerful tools to engage audiences. Instead of overwhelming people with data, she advocates for using stories that frame science in ways that evoke emotional and intellectual engagement. This shift from a purely rational approach to a more human-centered one acknowledges that people are more likely to trust information when it connects with their values and experiences. In today’s systems thinking endeavors that get systematically drilled down within product/service landscape, where misinformation spreads easily and scientific consensus is often questioned, Jen’s work is super relevant. She provides a thoughtful framework for how science communicators, designers, and educators can collaborate to rebuild public trust in science. Everyone in product environments that abuses distorts data and insights regularly could learn a lot from this paper. By blending design principles with a deep understanding of psychology and rhetoric, Briselli’s strategies offer a path to making science communication more effective, especially in a time when doubt and denialism are widespread. Historically, In order to change minds, we've had to tell amazing stories to build consensus. That's how you win and align hearts and minds to move forward. #servicedesign #storytelling #strategy https://lnkd.in/gaRXp9T7

“Integrating humanities expertise would result in a broader focus on ethical consequences, aesthetic and cultural effects and attuned views on how physical data and research objectives exist in a cultural setting that reaches beyond a lab, research station, classroom or university campus. Humanities perspectives would enhance the potential commercialisation of scientific inquiry through closer consideration of cultural applications, as well as broader showcasing of content to the general public.”