Science Does Not Speak for Itself: Translating Child Development Research for the Public and Its Policymakers

"...[C]redible translation of the science of early childhood development and its underlying neurobiology, conveyed in a clear and concise story, can increase the probability that this rapidly advancing knowledge base will be well understood, repeated accurately, and applied in an informed way to the formulation and implementation of policies and practices that will make a measureable difference in the lives of young children and their families."

This article explores the task of translating the science of early childhood development. It describes a 7-year effort spearheaded by 2 United States (US)-based organisations, the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the FrameWorks Institute, to use communications research to translate complex scientific concepts for policymakers and the citizens who elect them. In brief, the authors illustrate how the challenge of science translation can be addressed within a mutually respectful, ongoing, collaborative process in which developmental scientists, communications researchers, and policymakers can become "coproducers of broadly understood yet sophisticated scientific messages that are not 'dumbed down' yet take into account the cognitive shortcuts that nonscientists bring to the discussion of complex issues."

Following an introduction that provides context, the paper explores the evolution of this cross-disciplinary collaboration. Part of the process involved Strategic Frame Analysis, as developed by the FrameWorks Institute, which integrates constructs from the cognitive and social sciences into the study and practice of communications. It relies upon an iterative, multi-method, empirical process to: (a) identify cultural models that people use consistently to reason about a particular issue, (b) compare and contrast these models to the content of expert thinking on that issue, and (c) develop and empirically test frame cues (such as values and metaphors) for their ability to align lay judgments and solutions more closely with expert thinking. The process typically begins with a series of recorded interviews with content experts, often supplemented by a comprehensive literature review.

According to the article, translating the science of early childhood development presents 3 challenges:

1. Determining what needs translating - This involves developing a core story, which requires that the participating scientists discriminate between what is essential to understanding the process of development and what is more peripheral. For example, comparing the core story established by content experts with the public's "folk" understanding of child development revealed gaps in how nonscientists reason about this issue.
2. Identifying obstacles to public understanding - One finding: "because the models they [the public] use are scientifically inaccurate in many respects, lay observers are prone to judgments about programs and policies that are grossly at odds with the science of child development, such as the effects of chronic poverty on learning, behavior, and health...[T]he job of the effective science communicator is to provide more accurate models that are memorable and prove to be more conducive to science-based conclusions about how healthy development might be promoted on a broader, societal scale..."
3. Developing and verifying the impact of specific frame elements that improve public thinking - "In response to these identified problems in public perceptions, three areas consistent with the core story were prioritized initially for further development: (a) the need to describe what develops in concrete terms, (b) the need to make visible the process of how development happens, and (c) the need to demonstrate why development is derailed in the face of adversity....[T]o determine the strengths and weaknesses of the three simplifying models as they were being constructed, small groups of legislators in South Carolina and Kansas were asked to view and discuss a 15-min video presentation focused on key aspects of the core story."

An initial analysis of both the successes and the challenges of the past several years of the collaborative effort described in this article reveal 2 key lessons.

1. "[C]hild development researchers can influence the thinking and actions of a politically diverse policymaking audience if they focus more on teaching about science and less on preaching about which specific policies and programs should be supported....The essence of this approach is the presentation of a coherent narrative that helps nonscientists understand the process of development, both behaviorally and in the brain, in a way that leads them to think differently about how a range of policies and practices could improve the life prospects of young children."
2. "[B]eyond the Council's and Forum's written materials and the keynote presentations delivered by their members..., the greatest impacts have been achieved when scientists have been able to use their communications skills to explain the science of early childhood development directly to people who have the capacity to make things happen....When these relationships have been leveraged strategically, they have contributed to better informed public dialogue and associated policy advances in multiple states representing a wide variety of contexts and diverse political ideologies."