A comparison between scientists’ and communication scholars’ views about scientists’ public engagement activities

Abstract

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.

Keywords

communication scholars communication training science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

Basken

(2009) Often distant from policymaking, scientists try to find a public voice. Chronicle of Higher Education 55: 38.

Bentley

Kyvik

(2010) Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science 20: 48–63.

Besley

(2014) What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy 42: 201–214.

Besley

Nisbet

(2013) How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science 22: 644–659.

Besley

Tanner

(2011) What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication 33: 239–263.

Besley

Dudo

Storksdieck

(2015) Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52: 199–220.

Besley

Dudo

Yuan

(2017) Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science 27: 708–730.

10.

Besley

Dudo

Yuan

AbiGhannam

(2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication 38: 356–381.

11.

Besley

Dudo

Yuan

Lawrence

(2018) Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication. Epub ahead of print 12 July. DOI: 10.1177/1075547018786561.

12.

Besley

Nisbet

(2013) Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science 22: 971–987.

13.

Hamlyn

Shanahan

Lewis

O’Donoghue

Hanson

Burchell

(2015) Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: A study on behalf of a consortium of UK public research funders. Policy Studies Institute, December. Available at: http://www.psi.org.uk/pdf/2015/Factors%2020affecting%2020PER_%2020FINAL%2020NOV%202015.pdf

14.

Brossard

Nisbet

(2006) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19: 24–52.

15.

Cicerone

(2006) Celebrating and rethinking science communication (The National Academy of Sciences). In Focus. Available at: http://www.infocusmagazine.org/6.3/president.html

16.

Crettaz von Roten

(2010) Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication 33: 52–75.

17.

Delli Carpini

Cook

Jacobs

(2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–344.

18.

Department of Science and Technology: South Africa (2014) Science Engagement Framework. Pretoria: Department of Science and Technology.

19.

Dillman

Smyth

Christian

(2009) Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

20.

Dudo

(2012) Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication 35: 476–501.

21.

Dudo

Besley

(2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE 11: e0148867.

22.

Dudo

Kahlor

AbiGhannam

Lazard

Liang

(2014) An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology 9: 841–844.

23.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

(2009) Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86: 299–314.

24.

Ecklund

James

Lincoln

(2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE 7: e36240.

25.

European Union (2002) Science and Society: Action Plan. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

26.

Farley

Murphy

Rees

(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.

Fiske

Cuddy

Glick

(2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 77–83.

28.

Frewer

Hunt

Brennan

Kuznesof

Ness

Ritson

(2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research 6: 75–85.

29.

Funk

(2017) Mixed messages about public trust in science. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/2012/2008/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/ (accessed 3 March 2018).

30.

Holt

(2015) Why science? Why AAAS? Science 347: 807–807.

31.

Hon

(1998) Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research 10: 103–135.

32.

Jensen

Buckley

(2012) Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science 23: 557–573.

33.

Jensen

(2010) A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20: 26–36.

34.

Jia

Liu

(2014) Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science 23: 32–37.

35.

Lee

Scheufele

(2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83: 819–834.

36.

Leshner

(2007) Outreach training needed. Science 315: 161.

37.

Martin-Sempere

Garzon-Garcia

Rey-Rocha

(2008) Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17: 349–367.

38.

Miller

Fahy

and The ESConet Team (2009) Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication 31: 116–126.

39.

Mitchell

Gottfried

Barthel

Shearer

(2016) The modern news consumer. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/ (accessed 4 March 2018).

40.

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.

Nisbet

(2010) Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In: Kahlor

Stout

(eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, pp. 40–67. London, UK: Routledge.

45.

Nisbet

Scheufele

(2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96: 1767–1778.

46.

Olson

(2015) Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

47.

Peters

Brossard

de Cheveigné

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

et al . (2008) Interactions with the mass media. Science 321: 204–205.

48.

Poliakoff

Webb

(2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication 29: 242–263.

49.

Rainie

Funk

Anderson

(2015) How scientists engage the public. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/2002/2015/how-scientists-engage-public/ (accessed 3 March 2018).

50.

Russo

(2010) Outreach: Meet the press. Nature 468: 465–467.

51.

Selvakumar

Storksdieck

(2013) Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator: The Museum Journal 56: 69–78.

52.

Sturgis

Allum

(2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13: 55–74.

53.

The Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science (“The Bodmer Report”). London: The Royal Society. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf

54.

The Royal Society (2006) Science Communication: Excellence in Science. Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: The Royal Society.

55.

Trench

Miller

(2012) Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy 39: 722–731.

56.

Trumbo

(2001) Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharing a watershed. Society &Natural Resources 14: 889–899.

57.

Tsfati

Cohen

Gunther

(2011) The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication 33: 143–166.

58.

Weigold

(2001) Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23: 164–193.

59.

Yuan

Oshita

AbiGhannam

Dudo

Besley

Koh

(2017) Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B 7: 341–355.