This study looks at how United States–based academic scientists from five professional scientific societies think about eight different communication objectives. The degree to which scientists say they would prioritize these objectives in the context of face-to-face public engagement is statistically predicted using the scientists’ attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs, as well as demographics and past communication activity, training, and past thinking about the objectives. The data allow for questions about the degree to which such variables consistently predict views about objectives. The research is placed in the context of assessing factors that communication trainers might seek to reshape if they wanted get scientists to consider choosing specific communication objectives.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
2.
AllumNCSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
3.
BaronN (2010) Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter. Washington, DC: Island Press.
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.
6.
BauerMWJensenP (2011) The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 3–11.
7.
BesleyJCMcComasKA (2015) Something old and something new: Comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy. Journal of Risk Research18(2): 215–231.
8.
BesleyJCNisbetMC (2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 644–659.
9.
BesleyJCTannerAH (2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication33(2): 239–263.
10.
BesleyJCDudoAStorksdieckM (2015) Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching52(2): 199–220.
11.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanSAbiGhannamN (2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication38(3): 356–381.
12.
BesleyJCMcCrightAMZahryNRElliottKCKaminskiNEMartinJD (2017) Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS ONE12(4): e0175643.
13.
BesleyJCOhSHNisbetMC (2013) Predicting scientist’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science22(8): 971–987.
14.
BroomGMDozierDM (1990) Using Research in Public Relations: Applications to Program Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Bruine De BruinWBostromA (2013) Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(Suppl. 3): 14062–14068.
DaviesSR (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication29(4): 413–434.
18.
DillmanDASmythJDChristianLM (2009) Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
19.
DruckmanJNLupiaA (2016) Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review of Political Science19(1): 13–31.
20.
DudoA (2013) Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication35(4): 476–501.
21.
DudoABesleyJC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE11(2): e0148867.
22.
DudoAKahlorLAbiGhannamNLazardALiangM-C (2014) An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology9(10): 841–844.
23.
EcklundEHJamesSALincolnAE (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE7(5): e36240.
24.
EinsiedelE (2014) Publics and their participation in science and technology: Changing roles, blurring boundaries. In: TrenchBBucchiM (eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 125–139.
FischhoffB (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(Suppl. 3): 14033–14039.
27.
FishbeinM (2009) An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In: DiClementeRJCrosbyRAKeglerMC (eds) Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 215–234.
28.
FishbeinMAjzenI (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
29.
FiskeSTDupreeC (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America111(Suppl. 4): 13593–13597.
30.
GreenbergJ (1993) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: CropanzanoR (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 79–103.
31.
GrunigJEHuntT (1984) Managing Public Relations, vol. 343. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
32.
GrunigJEDozierDMEhlingWPGrunigLA (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
HayesRGrossmanD (2006) A Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
HonLC (1997) What have you done for me lately? Exploring effectiveness in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research9(1): 1–30.
36.
IvanovaASchaferMSSchlichtingISchmidtA (2013) Is there a medialization of climate science? Results from a survey of German climate scientists. Science Communication35(5): 626–653.
37.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14(2): 147–174.
38.
KendallRL (1992) Public Relations Campaign Strategies: Planning for Implementation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
39.
KreimerPLevinLJensenP (2011) Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 37–47.
40.
LindEAKanferREarleyPC (1990) Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59(5): 952–959.
41.
McComasKABesleyJC (2011) Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Analysis31(11): 1749–1761.
42.
McNuttM (2016) Beyond “one size fits all”—Communications in science: The why, how and when. Paper presented at the 2016 Annenberg Lecture, Annenburg Public Policy Center, Philadelphia, PA, 27 October.
43.
MakriA (2017) Give the public the tools to trust scientists. Nature541(7637): 261.
44.
MillerSFahyD and The ESConet Team (2009) Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication31(1): 116–126.
45.
MontanoDEKasprzykD (2015) Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: GlanzK (ed.) Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 95–124.
46.
MyersTANisbetMCMaibachEWLeiserowitzAA (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change113(3–4): 1105–1112.
47.
National Research Council (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
48.
Nature (2017) Beyond the science bubble. Nature542: 391.
49.
NelkinD (1987) The culture of science journalism. Society24(6): 17–25.
50.
NelkinD (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
51.
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96(10): 1767–1778.
52.
OlsonR (2009) Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Washington, DC: Island Press.
53.
OlsonR (2015) Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
54.
ParkhillKAHenwoodKLPidgeonNFSimmonsP (2011) Laughing it off? Humour, affect and emotion work in communities living with nuclear risk. British Journal of Sociology62(2): 324–346.
55.
PetersHP (2012) Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In: RödderSFranzenMWeingartP (eds) The Sciences’ Media Connection-Public Communication and Its Repercussions. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 217–239.
56.
PetersHPBrossardDDe CheveigneSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerSet al. (2008a) Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication30(2): 266–276.
57.
PetersHPHeinrichsHJungAKallfassMPetersenI (2008b) Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShunkeS (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 71–92.
58.
PielkeRAJr (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29(2): 242–263.
RödderS (2011) Science and the mass media—“medialization” as a new perspective on an intricate relationship. Sociology Compass5(9): 834–845.
62.
RogersCL (1986) The practioner in the middle. In: DunwoodySFriedmanSMRogersCL (eds) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 42–54.
63.
SchoormanFDMayerRCDavisJH (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review32(2): 344–354.
64.
SiegristM (2010) Trust and confidence: The difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Analysis30(7): 1022–1024.
65.
SumnerPVivian-GriffithsSBoivinJWilliamsAVenetisCADaviesAet al. (2014) The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. British Medical Journal349: g7015.
66.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016a) Effective Chemistry Communication in Informal Environments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
67.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016b) Science Literacy: Concepts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
68.
TrenchBMillerS (2012) Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy39(6): 722–731.
69.
WeingartP (1998) Science and the media. Research Policy27(9): 869–879.
YuanSBesleyJCLouC (2016) Does being a jerk work? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication in the context of science blogs. Journal of Risk Research21(4):502–520.
73.
YzerMCSouthwellBGStephensonMT (2013) Inducing fear as a public communication campaign strategy. In: RiceREAtkinCK (eds) Public Communication Campaigns, 4th edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 163–176.
