Here is the entire chat. (Thank, you Bruce!)

Picking a dissertation topic is not for the faint of heart or the unprepared. Narrowing an issue into components and sub-components involves, first, picking a topic, then exploring what others have researched in that area and, finally, finding your own niche.

Crisis communications, social media and higher-education leadership were my interest areas, and it literally took years to find a topic that I could research in a way that would be relevant and would cover each of these topics.

My doctoral studies in educational leadership at the University of Nevada, Reno, covered organizational theory, leadership issues and administrative challenges, meaning research possibilities were endless. Most coursework took place in the mid-2000s, a time when social media was coming into fruition. Four events in higher-education news also dominated that time period, which provided an opportunity to build a dissertation. Read the rest at PR Conversations.

A few notes: Information presented in this interview was gleaned from a number of sources. The first was a story by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which had compiled records on the top water users in Las Vegas. You may read it here.

The second is a series in the Las Vegas Sun called “For Want of Water.”

The third was my article from 2003 on Professor Dale Devitt , who studies water conservation in southern Nevada. It originally appeared in Silver & Blue magazine and may be read online here.

The fourth was SNWA’s water-use facts, outlined here.

Listen to the interview here.

The clip recently reached more than 420,000 views on Youtube. We conducted the interview, shot the footage, edited it down  and even recorded the soundtrack provided by a local band. Enjoy.

Now available in paperback and electronically:

The Good, The Bad, The Spin

“No matter who you are, or how you interact with the on-line world, this book is a good reminder that the ultimate goal of communication is the dissemination of truth.”

–Ron Andersen, This Is Reno

“Includes important tips and lessons learned from a variety of fascinating examples. Read it to learn or read it for pure entertainment.”

—Judy Strauss, Ph.D.
Marketing Professor, University of Nevada, Reno
co-author, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputation Online

From the introduction:

To be human, as science as shown, is to be easily swayed by our perceptions of our surroundings. Social psychologist Robert Cialdini, in his seminal book called Influence: Science and Practice, says the future must be vigilant about information overload. Specifically, “because technology can evolve much faster than we can, our natural capacity to process information is likely to be increasingly inadequate to handle the abundance of change, choice and the challenge that is characteristic of modern life.

“More and more frequently, we will find ourselves in the position of lower animals – with a mental apparatus that is unequipped to deal thoroughly with the intricacy and richness of the outside world,” he continues.

Being aware of this reality, especially in a time when we must, now more than ever, guard against information overload, is therefore critical. But we must first be cognizant that information overload is occurring in the first place. It is because of this that I regularly reflect on what is passing through our filters and what sense is being made of it.

A science-based policy publication aimed at enhancing the Great Basin’s environment.

From the preface…

The primary impetus for this Wildfire Forum is a document authored by John McLain and Sheila Anderson of Resource Concepts, Inc. entitled “Urgent Need for a Scientific Review of the Ecological and Management History of the Great Basin Natural Resources and Recommendations to Achieve Ecosystem Restoration.”

This document urged prominent scientists who have spent their careers studying, observing and working to manage the Great Basin ecosystem to pool their collective knowledge and experience over the last four decades, summarize their studies and provide recommendations to address the critical problems facing the Great Basin.

The response to the call was overwhelming as scientists expressed their willingness to participate, and several private Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and government agencies offered to help. Responding to a request from John McLain, Principal of Resource Concepts, Dr. David Thawley, Director of the Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station (NAES) at the University of Nevada, Reno agreed to host and sponsor a discussion forum and publish the results as an Experiment Station publication.

Dr. Rangesan Narayanan, Associate Dean of Outreach and Professor of Resource Economics, agreed to provide the required leadership to organize the forum and produce an NAES publication. Dr. Elwood Miller, Professor and Associate Director Emeritus, facilitated the forum discussion and participated in writing and editing this publication.

The two-day forum was held September 17–18, 2007 at the University of Nevada, Reno campus. The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources contributed the time of Mr. Bob Conrad to assist Dr. Narayanan and Dr. Miller with the editing and compilation of this publication.

Seventeen prominent scientists with more than 500 years of combined work experience in the Great Basin were invited to participate. Fourteen scientists participated in the forum, and two participated through correspondence. A limited number of observers from various state and federal agencies were invited during the two-day symposium and
participated in question-and-answer sessions.

Read the rest by downloading the publication.

The emergence of the Information Age has given most everyone access to an unlimited wealth of knowledge. More recently, as social online media have flourished, there is an even greater rate of participation.

With that, curiously, has been a trend to claim expertise. Tim Ferriss’ book, The Four Hour Work Week (which I recommend with some reservations) has a section on how to transform yourself into an expert at something. Among the suggestions: get yourself published, get interviewed by the news media, add your name to ProfNet and so on. Follow these tips, and you too can become an expert.

Not so fast. While, in theory, each of these is true to some degree, and defining one’s self as expert is merely the act of doing so, the reality is that the term expert is being bandied about too loosely, now apparently more than ever.

What about those who spend years upon years building skill sets and specialized knowledge? Those with master’s degrees in a particular field, or those who hold a doctorate – don’t they technically have more expertise than these new, self-proclaimed experts?

In my day job I have the occasion to sit in on contentious and high-stakes water rights hearings. There, the legal definition of “expert” rules. I remember one witness had nearly completed his master’s degree in biology and was just now being allowed to testify as an expert witness.

So how is expertise determined? Here is one source that I found to have a thorough but easily understood definition of how courts determine what constitutes an expert.

“The qualifications of an expert witness must be carefully scrutinized by courts to guard against charlatans who may give erroneous testimony without a sound foundation. Most courts will more closely scrutinize the qualifications of witnesses seeking to testify as experts if they have never been found qualified to give expert testimony on a prior occasion. However, primary reliance is not placed on the fact that it may be the expert’s first time on the witness stand. Conversely, the fact that a witness has been previously qualified to give expert testimony on the subject matter in question is typically irrelevant to his or her qualifications for giving such testimony in a subsequent case.”

This is not to say that “expert” testimony or opinion can’t be flawed. Frequently, it is. At the same time, there is a significant difference between a phenomenon tested with scientific methods and lay opinion.

The refinement and validation of that scientific expertise is also critical.

“The U.S. Supreme Court further observed that the reliability of a scientific technique may turn on whether the technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; and whether there is a high rate of error or standards controlling its operation.” (Source.)

The aim of the (now defunct) Bridge2Science project was to provide free, quick access to credible expertise, which is why we targeted higher education institutions, research think tanks and the like. To us, those in the research fields, particularly at established institutions, are the best providers of expert information. I think the legal world would tend to agree.

Researchers, scientists, policy analysts and professors devote lifetimes to their particular areas of expertise. For somebody to come along, publish a few articles in lay publications, start a blog about a topic and then claim expertise is a trend that treads in dangerous waters.

So, you’re a journalist, a news blogger or maybe a freelance writer, and you’re trying to get an expert source for a story that you are working on. With an overload of information on the web, how can you make sure your sources are legitimate, especially in scientific areas?

“Briefly, the problem begins with the culture of science which [can] discourage communication by scientists to the news media and the lay public. Second, journalists frequently report on scientific information incorrectly, or they are quick to cite dubious sources without being knowledgeable of what the scientific issues are really about. Finally, because science is so complex, the public understanding of science and the research process is fairly low. Combined, we have a situation where science is largely misunderstood,” says Bob Conrad, founder of Bridge2Science.

Read the Current.com story here. The complete interview is available here.