Author
Denis Mancevič, PhD
In public discourse, expert arguments are never isolated from social and political realities. The broader context—from the “pulse” of public opinion to political dynamics—plays a key role in how expert findings are received, interpreted, or implemented. For instance, while there has been a long-standing scientific consensus on climate change, political decisions and public reactions often lag or are marred by scepticism and opposition. We even witness “steps backward,” not solely due to populism, social media, or the false equivalence of all opinions, but also due to communication missteps by those who hold expert knowledge.
The political context (election campaigns, party preferences, and short-term political benefits) often overshadows long-term expert goals, as politicians frequently respond to what is easiest and quickest to “sell” to the electorate. Additionally, interest groups with specific agendas and access to political power often shape the perception of certain topics, further drowning out even the most well substantiated expert arguments. Finally, no public discourse occurs in a vacuum: emotions, values, and beliefs—shaped by media, social networks, and popular opinion leaders—play a significant role.
The expert community often finds itself in situations where its arguments go unheard because they are communicated in a language, tone, and format that are inaccessible or incomprehensible to the wider public and decision-makers.
Experts frequently rely on terminology, data, and analyses that the average person cannot understand. Communicating expert findings in a simplified, comprehensible way is an art that many do not master. If the message is too complex, the public will lose interest simply because they do not understand it. Understanding is the foundation for any further processing of the communicated message.
Moreover, the expert community should be more attuned to the “pulse” of the public—their feelings, fears, and values. Dry data and graphs rarely convince, while stories, metaphors, and emotionally charged messages more easily elicit reactions and even proactive actions, which are often the ultimate goal of expert discussions.
When the expert community fails to adapt its approach, it faces numerous risks that can harm not only its credibility and reputation but also societal progress in the long term. This was evident during the vaccination campaigns in the COVID-19 pandemic; the social damage caused by—and still being caused by—the anti-vaccine movement is measurable. In addition, this damage is immense.
No public discourse occurs in a vacuum: emotions, values, and beliefs—shaped by media, social networks, and popular opinion leaders—play a significant role.
A blog is, of course, not the format for in-depth analysis or detailed, well-argued guidelines, but a few key steps can be outlined:
Expert communities must invest more resources (human, financial, etc.) into the communication function—into communicating their findings in a way that is understandable, engaging, and relevant to various target audiences. Training experts in communication and collaborating with public relations professionals can significantly enhance the effectiveness of message delivery.
The expert community must actively monitor the political and social context and adapt its messages to current conditions. This doesn’t mean compromising on expertise but rather engaging in strategically targeted communication that accounts for the realities of the environment.
Instead of passively waiting for decision-makers to seek expert opinions, experts must actively engage in public discussions. Participation in media, social networks, and public campaigns can increase their visibility and influence. However, this must be done in a way that is comprehensible to the average person, the everyday voter, rather than predominantly the well-informed or expert audience. There is significant room for improvement here.
The expert community can amplify its influence by forming alliances with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, civil initiatives, or even politicians who support expert arguments. This can establish a broader coalition that is better equipped to influence public opinion and political decisions.
There are numerous examples of expert voices being overshadowed by interests, emotions, or political calculations. However, this doesn’t mean the expert community should retreat from the discourse. On the contrary—it means they must adapt their methods and prepare for the complexities of the modern world. High-quality arguments and expertise remain crucial, but without strategic communication and an understanding of the broader context, they remain mere whispers in the noise. It’s time for the expert whisper to become loud and clear.
Experts frequently rely on terminology, data, and analyses that the average person cannot understand. Communicating expert findings in a simplified, comprehensible way is an art that many do not master. If the message is too complex, the public will lose interest simply because they don’t understand it. Understanding is the foundation for any further processing of the communicated message.