Foresight 5. Social media as truth

Background

• Electronic communications have revolutionised the way discourse occurs globally, with social media dominating the ways in which people engage.
• Social media’s rise in popularity and access has extended its influence beyond that of social exchange to use for politics and lobbying, and as a key vehicle for engagement in policy debate.
• Policy debate narratives increasingly are driven, shaped, and held accountable by those beyond the traditional ‘expert gatekeepers’ in research and science.
• The role of research and science traditionally has been at the forefront of policy discourse as a source of highly valued and respected information and advice.
• That role of science in policy discourse is changing rapidly as a multitude of different – and public – voices are being heard through social media platforms.
• These trends are having material influence on policy formulation and decisions, particularly for high-profile and emotive issues (e.g., factory fishing, water regulation, sentencing law, climate change) where research and expert advice historically have been considered important.
• Conventional forms of research comment and public institutional processes are ill-suited to the rapid-fire dynamics and immediacy of social media meaning that expert contribution often is left behind, or left out of, the social media dialogue.
• People all think they are becoming experts, based partly on “confirmatory bias” and ease of access to information, and expect that they can learn anything quickly online.

Scenario

• Politicians, bureaucrats, and advisors rely increasingly on fast media, including social media, for input to policy and, eventually, most or all information.
• Expert commentary is marginalised or ignored as it lags behind the pace of public discourse and is considered cumbersome and long-winded compared to ‘140 character facts’.
• PFRAs struggle as governments progressively reduce funding for ‘national benefit’ or policy-relevant research.
• Research becomes seen as an anachronism and privilege relevant only to academia, out of step with social or political need.

Indicators: How would we know this is starting to happen?

1. Major issues driven by inaccurate and misleading statements accepted without critique.
2. Experts fail to engage in debate because of reticence to simplify information for social media
3. Institutional barriers prevent rapid-fire responses by experts.
4. Decisions made at odds with research but allegedly based on science.
5. Research perceived as irrelevant to most social issues
6. Public use conspicuously spurious ‘facts’ or ‘science’ argument to challenge research advice.

Scoring of indicators

Project team only – “score” this scenario (requires login): Click to continue.