This research provides secondary data analysis of two large-scale scientist surveys. These include a 2009 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members and a 2006 survey of university scientists by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society. Multivariate models are applied to better understand the motivations, beliefs, and conditions that promote scientists’ involvement in communication with the public and the news media. In terms of demographics, scientists who have reached mid-career status are more likely than their peers to engage in outreach, though even after controlling for career stage, chemists are less likely than other scientists to do so. In terms of perceptions and motivations, a deficit model view that a lack of public knowledge is harmful, a personal commitment to the public good, and feelings of personal efficacy and professional obligation are among the strongest predictors of seeing outreach as important and in participating in engagement activities.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
2.
BarberBR (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
BauerMWJensenP (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 3–11.
4.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
5.
BaumgartnerJMorrisJS (2006) The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research34(3): 341–367.
6.
BeierleTCCayfordJ (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
7.
BentleyPKyvikS (2011) Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 48–63.
8.
BesleyJC (2008) Media exposure and core values. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly85(2): 311–330.
9.
BesleyJCNisbetMC (in press) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743
10.
BesleyJCRobertsMC (2010) Qualitative interviews with journalists about deliberative public engagement. Journalism Practice4(1): 66–81.
11.
BesleyJCTannerAH (2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication33(2): 239–263.
12.
BlokAJensenMKaltoftP (2008) Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science17(2): 189–209.
13.
BurchellK (2007) Empiricist selves and contingent “others”: The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 145–162.
14.
BurninghamKBarnettJCarrACliftRWehrmeyerW (2007) Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 23–43.
15.
CohenJCohenPWestSGAikenLS (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
ConnerMArmitageCJ (1998) Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology28(15): 1429–1464.
17.
CookGPieriERobbinsPT (2004) “The scientists think and the public feels”: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society15(4): 433–449.
18.
DaviesSR (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication29(4): 413–434.
19.
De BoerMMcCarthyMBrennanMKellyALRitsonC (2005) Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the Island of Ireland: The views of food safety experts. Journal of Food Safety25(4): 241–265.
20.
Delli CarpiniMX (2004) Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications and citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In: KaidLL (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 395–434.
21.
Delli CarpiniMXCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science7: 315–344.
22.
DeVellisRF (2003) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
FischhoffB (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis2: 137–144.
24.
GambleJKassardjianE (2008) The use of selected community groups to elicit and understand the values underlying attitudes towards biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science17(2): 245–259.
25.
GastilJLevineP (eds) (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-first Century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
HolbertRL (2004) Political talk radio, perceived fairness, and the establishment of president George W. Bush’s political legitimacy. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics9(3): 12–27.
27.
JensenP (2011) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 26–36.
28.
KrystallisAFrewerLRoweGHoughtonJKehagiaOPerreaT (2007) A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe. Health, Risk & Society9(4): 407–424.
29.
LapinskiMKRimalRNDeVriesRLeeEL (2007) The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health Communication22(2): 133–142.
30.
Levy-LeblondJ-M (1992) About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public Understanding of Science1(1): 17–21.
31.
MarantaAGuggenheimMGislerPPohlC (2003) The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociologica46(2): 150–165.
32.
MichaelMBrownN (2000) From the representation of publics to the performance of “lay political science”. Social Epistemology14(1): 3–19.
33.
MooreAStilgoeJ (2009) Experts and anecdotes: The role of “anecdotal evidence” in public scientific controversies. Science, Technology and Human Values34(5): 654–677.
34.
MoyPScheufeleDA (2000) Media effects on political and social trust. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77(4): 744–759.
35.
National Research Council (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
NeresiniFBucchiM (2011) Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 64–79.
37.
NisbetMCKotcherJE (2009) A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication30(3): 328–354.
38.
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96(10): 1767–1778.
39.
NorrisP (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
PageBI (1996) Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
PearsonGPringleSMThomasJN (1997) Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science6(3): 279–289.
42.
PetersHPBrossardDde CheveigneSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerSTsuchidaS (2008) Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science321(5886): 204–205.
43.
PetersenAAndersonAAllanSWilkinsonC (2009) Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science18(5): 512–530.
44.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. July9. Available at (accessed October 16, 2011): http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf
45.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29(2): 242–263.
46.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
47.
RosenstoneSJHansenJM (1993) Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
48.
Royal Society (2006) Science Communication: Excellence in Science. Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: The Royal Society. Available at (accessed October 16, 2011): http://royalsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=5232
49.
ScheufeleDANisbetMCBrossardD (2003) Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(3): 300–324.
50.
StilgoeJ (2007) The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 45–61.
51.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
52.
Torres-AlberoCFernandez-EsquinasMRey-RochaJMartin-SempereMJ (2011) Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 12–25.
53.
TrumboCWO’KeefeGJ (2001) Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharing a watershed. Society & Natural Resources14(10): 889–899.
54.
UslanerEM (1998) Social capital, television, and the “mean world”: Trust, optimism, and civic participation. Political Psychology19(3): 441–467.
55.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
WeaverDH (2007) The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57.
XenosM (2008) New mediated deliberation: Blog and press coverage of the Alito nomination. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13(1): 485–503.
58.
YoungNMatthewsR (2007) Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 123–144.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
