Social media allow experts to form communities and engage in direct dialogue with publics, which can promote mutual understanding between sciences and publics. However, little is known about experts’ participation in online communities, or effective ways to prepare them for public engagement. Here, we explored these issues with experts who voluntarily engage with publics on social media, to understand their public engagement practices. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted with 20 experts who participate in question-and-answer Facebook groups dedicated to vaccines and nutrition. The findings suggest that experts employ diverse considerations in their outreach, partly to establish epistemic trustworthiness. These can be grouped into three goals and two constraints: countering misinformation, establishing benevolence, and establishing competence while maintaining integrity and clarity. Empathic failure and burnout both emerged as factors that impair establishing benevolence. We discuss implications for community-level science literacy and for preparing scientists for “bounded engagement with publics.”
AllgaierJDunwoodySBrossardDLoY-YPetersHP (2013) Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience63(4): 284–287.
2.
American Dietetic Association (2006) Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and nutrition misinformation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association106(4): 601–607.
3.
AtanasovaSKaminTPetričG (2017) Exploring the benefits and challenges of health professionals’ participation in online health communities: Emergence of (dis)empowerment processes and outcomes. International Journal of Medical Informatics98: 13–21.
4.
Baram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2017) Science communication training: What are we trying to teach?International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement7(3): 285–300.
5.
Baram-TsabariASchejterA (2019) The double-edged sword of new media in supporting public engagement with science. In: KaliYSchejterABaram-TsabariA (eds) Learning in a Networked Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 79–95.
6.
Barel-Ben DavidYBaram-TsabariA (2020) Evaluating science communication training: Going beyond self-reports. In: NewmanTP (ed.) Theory and Best Practices in Science Communication Training. Abingdon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 122–137.
7.
BesleyJC (2015) What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy42(2): 201–214.
8.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanSLawrenceF (2018) Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication40(5): 559–590.
9.
BrommeRGoldmanSR (2014) The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist49(2): 59–69.
10.
BrownP (1993) When the public knows better: Popular epidemiology challenges the system. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development35(8): 16–41.
11.
DaviesSRHaraN (2017) Public science in a wired world: How online media are shaping science communication. Science Communication39(5): 563–568.
12.
DaviesSRMcCallieESimonssonELehrJLDuensingS (2009) Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science18(3): 338–353.
13.
DempseyNP (2010) Stimulated recall interviews in ethnography. Qualitative Sociology33(3): 349–367.
14.
DeweyJ (1927) The Public and Its Problems. New York, NY: Holt.
15.
DouglasH (2014) The moral terrain of science. Erkenntnis79(5): 961–979.
16.
DudoABesleyJC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE11(2): 1–18.
17.
EpsteinS (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values20(4): 408–437.
18.
European Commission (2013) Special Eurobarometer 401: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
19.
FassierPChhimA-SAndreevaVAHercbergSLatino-MartelPPouchieuC, et al. (2016) Seeking health- and nutrition-related information on the Internet in a large population of French adults: Results of the NutriNet-Santé study. British Journal of Nutrition115(11): 2039–2046.
20.
GolumbicYNOrrDBaram-TsabariAFishbainB (2017) Between vision and reality: A case study of scientists’ views on citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice2(1): 6.
21.
HargittaiEFüchslinTSchäferMS (2018) How do young adults engage with science and research on social media? Some preliminary findings and an agenda for future research. Social Media + Society4(3). DOI: 10.1177/2056305118797720.
22.
HelmJShandwickWMiller JonesR (2016) Practice paper of the academy of nutrition and dietetics: Social media and the dietetics practitioner: Opportunities, challenges, and best practices. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics116(11): 1825–1835.
23.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2016) Trust in science and the science of trust. In: BlöbaumB (ed.) Trust and Communication in a Digitalized World: Models and Concepts of Trust Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 143–159.
24.
HowellELNepperJBrossardDXenosMAScheufeleDA (2019) Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement. PLoS ONE14(5): 1–20.
JarreauPB (2015) Science bloggers’ self-perceived communication roles. Journal of Science Communication14(4): 1–25.
27.
JiaHWangDMiaoWZhuH (2017) Encountered but not engaged: Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese scientists. Science Communication39: 646–672.
28.
LarsonHJde FigueiredoAXiahongZSchulzWSVergerPJohnstonIG, et al. (2016) The state of vaccine confidence 2016: Global insights through a 67-country survey. EBioMedicine12: 295–301.
29.
LeaskJKinnersleyPJacksonCCheaterFBedfordHRowlesG (2012) Communicating with parents about vaccination: A framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatrics12(1): 154.
30.
LincolnYSGubaEG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
31.
LyleJ (2003) Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal29(6): 861–878.
32.
McCullySNDonBPUpdegraffJA (2013) Using the Internet to help with diet, weight, and physical activity: Results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Journal of Medical Internet Research15(8): e148.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (2016) Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35.
National Science Board (2018) Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/
36.
NeedhamCMcCallieEBellLLohwaterTFalkJHLehrJL, et al. (2009) Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, Washington, DC. Available at: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/eth_fac/12/
37.
OrrDBaram-TsabariA (2018) Science and politics in the Polio vaccination debate on Facebook: A mixed-methods approach to public engagement in a science-based dialogue. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education19(1): 1–8.
38.
OrrDBaram-TsabariALandsmanK (2016) Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: The Polio vaccine on Facebook. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research5: 34.
PetersHPDunwoodySAllgaierJLoY-YBrossardD (2014) Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO Reports15(7): 749–753.
41.
PollardCMPulkerCEMengXKerrDAScottJA. (2015) Who uses the internet as a source of nutrition and dietary information? An Australian population perspective. Journal of Medical Internet Research17(8): e209.
42.
ReichZBarnoyA (2016) Reconstructing production practices through interviewing. In: WitschgeTAndersonCWDomingoDHermidaA (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism. London: SAGE, pp. 477–493.
43.
RubinLLandsmanK (2016) The importance of social networking in a national polio vaccine campaign. Pediatrics138(2): 20586.
44.
SaldañaJ (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
45.
ShahC (2017) Online Question-Answering (Q&A). In: ShahC (ed.) Social Information Seeking. Cham: Springer, pp. 45–74.
46.
TrenchB (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneNRJ, et al. (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 119–135.
47.
VennikFDAdamsSAFaberMJPuttersK (2014) Expert and experiential knowledge in the same place: Patients’ experiences with online communities connecting patients and health professionals. Patient Education and Counseling95(2): 265–270.
48.
VERBI Software (2017) MAXQDA 2018. Berlin: Author.
49.
Weeth FeinsteinN (2015) Education, communication, and science in the public sphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching52(2): 145–163.
ZakiJCikaraM (2015) Addressing empathic failures. Current Directions in Psychological Science24(6): 471–476.
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.
