After last week's focus on the science of mechanical and natural #ventilation, today's @IndependentSage briefing focused on its translation into a non-technical #communication#messaging 'proof of concept' scheme.
3. NB. Ventilation is complex - as is making decisions about the behavioural mitigations needed following the assessment of any given space - so any such scheme must be underpinned by ventilation and aerosol expertise ...
4. ... but it’s also the case that loads of assessments in loads of organizations have already been done - or are being done now - and the results are communicated to users clearly, badly, or not at all.
The proposed scheme would involve *something like* this:
5. Clear, concise, trustworthy, timely and ‘enact-able’ (i.e., translating into behaviours) has been a constant problem in the UK govt's messaging.
For example, in August 2021 a YouGov poll found that people thought handwashing was more important than face-coverings.
6. Lots of brilliant scientists have recommended and called for investment in ventilation since the start of the pandemic and earlier, of course, since it is an established public health tool. We link to several ventilation standards in the paper. e.g., raeng.org.uk/publications/r…
7. As the science about the airborne nature of Covid-19 emerged, non-technical messages began to get traction, including via ‘fresh air’ campaigns such as @hughes_eilir's #HandsFaceSpaceReplace
The UK government added ‘fresh air’ in March 2021.
8. Addressing the issue of poor ventilation is included in the UK government’s ‘Autumn and Winter Plan 2021.’
However, we don’t have a plan to provide standardized non-technical information about the ventilation (or lack) of indoor spaces and what (not) to do as a result.
9. There are several short and longer term advantages of working towards a transparent and standardized information or messaging and certification scheme:
10. Awareness is key.
The scheme will help people to understand what questions to ask and eventually the technical terminology (e.g., ‘air changes per hour’) will seep into everyday language - much like terms like ‘UV’ and ‘SPF 15’ are well established in our daily lexicon.
11. Formalizing any scheme could be important: research on the impact of displaying food hygiene certificates shows that “after mandating postings, hygiene levels improve” but “that if posting isn’t mandated the poorly rated establishments do not post.”
12. So, what would this kind of scheme look like out there in the real world?
Maybe a bit like this ...
13. ... or this
14. Such a scheme would be useful not just during the current coronavirus pandemic but into the future, since good ventilation is so important for public health.
Here’s a little case study of the ripple effect of UK government mixed messaging - universities and face coverings.
1. “Face coverings are no longer advised for students, staff and visitors either in teaching rooms or in communal areas” (DfE, 17.8.21)
“no longer advised” 🤨
2. Meanwhile, beyond campus, the government has
“removed the requirement to wear face coverings in law"
"but"
"expects and recommends that they are worn"
"in enclosed and crowded spaces where people may come into contact with people they don’t normally meet.”
3. Back to universities:
“There are no longer restrictions on the approach to teaching and learning in HE... There is no requirement for social distancing or other measures within in person teaching... [and there are no] restrictions to face-to-face provision.”
Our ‘Following the Science’ Timeline charts the main behavioural science recommendations from SAGE & Indie SAGE about the measures needed to minimize the spread of COVID-19 alongside what the Westminster Government implemented and when.
🧵+🔗⬇️
2. The timeline covers four main areas: hand and respiratory hygiene, face coverings, physical distancing, and self-isolation...
3. ...it also covers selected events, news, and dates as an aide memoire, and some dates about emerging science (e.g., the airborne nature of Covid) where it had implications for behaviours like wearing face coverings or opening windows.
Regarding @IanCookson72's point below, #EMCA research shows us that whatever appears in the 'answer' slot in a conversation can be assessed (in the moment and post-hoc) for how it addresses the initiating 'question'. News interviews are full of examples.
2. There is a great deal of conversation analytic and other research on media / news / political interviews – too much for a thread – including on the thousands of Newsnight interviews.
3. If you’re not familiar with conversation analysis, transcripts use the ‘Jefferson’ system which, like music notation, includes the precise pace, intonation, etc. of real talk as it is produced, including gaps between and pauses within turns timed to the nearest 0.1 second.
'Build rapport' is at the heart of #communication skills training and #CX
It's obviously good to have good conversations, but what does ‘building rapport’ look like ‘in the wild’ – and does it 'work'?
1. Thread. 🧵
2. What actually counts as rapport building – in terms of words and phrases and 'tone of voice' – is "amorphous” and “nebulous”, says G.B. Rubin (2016) in her thesis on crisis #negotiation
'Active listening' and related concepts sound good but they're also imprecise.
3. One common piece of advice (and instruction) to ‘build rapport’ is to ask, “how are you today?”
‘How are you’ have also been called “the three most useless words in the world of communication"🤔
Let’s have a look at some salespeople ‘building rapport’ in #B2B conversations.
Some questions are *standardized* (e.g., surveys, scripts, instructions) and require reading out loud, word for word.
In business, research, law, medicine, etc., do people "just read them out"?
TL;DR: No. And there are consequences.
1. 🧵
2. We might take it for granted that, when 'standardized', questions will be the same whether spoken or written. The examples in the thread will show they're not.
Without examining actual interaction, we won't know the clinical, diagnostic, legal, etc. consequences either way.
3. Let's start with @rolsi_journal's research on the significant consequences of the way diagnostic instruments about #QualityOfLife are delivered in talk, compared to how they're written on the page.
2. If a person threatening violence can hear you on the phone, using ‘small talk’ - in this case, saying "y'all right" at precisely the place where it would routinely appear in an ordinary conversation - will help you sound like you’re having an ordinary conversation.
3. The caller uses her tacit knowledge that saying "y'all right" (or similar, like “how are you”) at this point in a call is routine and ordinary, helping the conversation sound routine and ordinary.