Open AccessFinal report: Clear Communications and Uncertainty
Author(s) -
Etienne Julien,
Chirico Stefania,
Gunabalasingham Thanusan,
Jarvis Andrew
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
efsa supporting publications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2397-8325
DOI - 10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1412
Subject(s) - stakeholder , clarity , focus group , generalizability theory , psychology , risk communication , perception , public relations , political science , business , risk analysis (engineering) , marketing , developmental psychology , biochemistry , chemistry , neuroscience
This report presents the results from an exploratory study in 2016 on clear communication of scientific assessment results. It had a specific focus on the communication of scientific uncertainties in EFSA scientific opinions. Qualitative methods were applied to the design and communication of an opinion summary and uncertainty statements related to that opinion, and to collect evidence on how different stakeholder groups responded to them. The study tested the Clear Communication Index (CCI) tool, using it to elaborate a simplified opinion summary and then seeking stakeholder views on the latter. The study then focused on stakeholder views on uncertainty statements, and particularly on (i) whether and how the information was understood, (ii) how uncertainty information influenced risk perceptions and (iii) confidence in EFSA, and (iv) which uncertainty information was useful to stakeholders and how. The study as a whole involved the use of desk research, questionnaires, and focus groups. It engaged representatives of five stakeholder groups ‐ political decision‐makers, technical decision‐makers, industry, NGOs, and the informed public. Findings indicate that the CCI tool/approach may be applicable to EFSA's communication materials and may help improve clarity of message. The study provided insights on uncertainty communication at EFSA and how it may be received, understood, and used by EFSA's audiences. Given the exploratory nature of the study, further research with larger samples of consultees is needed to assess the generalizability of those insights.