This study investigated how communication scholars view scientists’ public engagement as well as differences between how these scholars and natural and physical scientists think about the topic. The study used surveys of authors who recently published in five journals related to science communication alongside surveys of scientists from three prominent professional science societies. The results suggest that communication scholars (N = 362) shared some views with the scientists (N = 307, 373, 372) regarding scientists’ performance, factors that influence engagement activities, and communication objectives, but potentially important differences were observed as well. Scientists have more positive beliefs about engagement norms and also rate their engagement efficacy relatively high. But communication scholars have higher expectations for online engagement amount. The findings address gaps in perceptions and performances from these two communities and suggest areas of potential emphasis for science communication training.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50: 179–211.
2.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84: 191–215.
3.
BaskenP (2009) Often distant from policymaking, scientists try to find a public voice. Chronicle of Higher Education55: 38.
4.
BentleyPKyvikS (2010) Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science20: 48–63.
5.
BesleyJC (2014) What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy42: 201–214.
6.
BesleyJCNisbetMC (2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science22: 644–659.
7.
BesleyJCTannerAH (2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication33: 239–263.
8.
BesleyJCDudoAStorksdieckM (2015) Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching52: 199–220.
9.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanS (2017) Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science27: 708–730.
10.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanSAbiGhannamN (2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication38: 356–381.
11.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanSLawrenceF (2018) Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication. Epub ahead of print 12 July. DOI: 10.1177/1075547018786561.
12.
BesleyJCOhSHNisbetMC(2013) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science22: 971–987.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2006) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19: 24–52.
Crettaz von RotenF (2010) Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication33: 52–75.
17.
Delli CarpiniMXCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science7: 315–344.
18.
Department of Science and Technology: South Africa (2014) Science Engagement Framework. Pretoria: Department of Science and Technology.
19.
DillmanDASmythJDChristianLM (2009) Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
20.
DudoA (2012) Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication35: 476–501.
21.
DudoABesleyJC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE11: e0148867.
22.
DudoAKahlorLAbiGhannamNLazardALiangMC (2014) An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology9: 841–844.
23.
DunwoodySBrossardDDudoA (2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly86: 299–314.
24.
EcklundEHJamesSALincolnAE (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE7: e36240.
25.
European Union (2002) Science and Society: Action Plan. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
26.
FarleyHMurphyAReesS (2013) Revisiting the definition of mobile learning. In:Proceedings of the electric dreams: 30th ascilite conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1–4 December, pp. 283–287. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Macquarie University.
27.
FiskeSTCuddyAJGlickP (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences11: 77–83.
28.
FrewerLHuntSBrennanMKuznesofSNessMRitsonC (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research6: 75–85.
HonLC (1998) Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research10: 103–135.
32.
JensenEBuckleyN (2012) Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science23: 557–573.
33.
JensenP (2010) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science20: 26–36.
34.
JiaHLiuL (2014) Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science23: 32–37.
35.
LeeCJScheufeleDA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83: 819–834.
36.
LeshnerAI (2007) Outreach training needed. Science315: 161.
37.
Martin-SempereMJGarzon-GarciaBRey-RochaJ (2008) Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science17: 349–367.
38.
MillerSFahyD and The ESConet Team (2009) Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication31: 116–126.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Effective Chemistry Communication in Informal Environments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42.
National Research Council (1989) Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43.
National Science Board (2016) Chapter 7, science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/ (accessed 4 March 2018).
44.
NisbetMC (2010) Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In: KahlorLAStoutPA (eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, pp. 40–67. London, UK: Routledge.
45.
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96: 1767–1778.
46.
OlsonR (2015) Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
PetersHPBrossardDde CheveignéSDunwoodySKallfassMMillerSet al. (2008) Interactions with the mass media. Science321: 204–205.
48.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29: 242–263.
RussoG (2010) Outreach: Meet the press. Nature468: 465–467.
51.
SelvakumarMStorksdieckM (2013) Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator: The Museum Journal56: 69–78.
52.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
The Royal Society (2006) Science Communication: Excellence in Science. Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: The Royal Society.
55.
TrenchBMillerS (2012) Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy39: 722–731.
56.
TrumboCW (2001) Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharing a watershed. Society &Natural Resources14: 889–899.
57.
TsfatiYCohenJGuntherAC (2011) The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication33: 143–166.
58.
WeigoldMF (2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23: 164–193.
59.
YuanSOshitaTAbiGhannamNDudoABesleyJCKohHE (2017) Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B7: 341–355.
