Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We have little systematic knowledge about scholars’ goals for public engagement in the academic literature. This study therefore provides a secondary analysis of two surveys of scholars that included closed-ended questions about goals. One survey from 2017 was from a sample of Canadian grant recipients from a federal science funding agency, while the second survey from 2018 comes from a sample of professors at top American research universities. The focus of this research is on both presenting novel data about scholars’ expressed goals and exploring the relationships between these goals and potential predictors of these goals, including demographics, past engagement behavior, and overall views about public engagement. Areas for future research are then described.

Keywords

goals public engagement science communication scientists strategic communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2019) Science & technology policy fellowships. Available at: https://www.aaas.org/programs/science-technology-policy-fellowships

Besley

Dudo

(2017a) Landscaping overview of the North American science communication training community. Available at: http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Communication%20Training%20Landscape%20Overview%20Final.pdf

Besley

Dudo

(2017b) Scientists’ views about public engagement and science communication in the context of climate change. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-380

Besley

Dudo

Yuan

(2018) Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science 27(6): 708–730.

Besley

Dudo

Yuan

AbiGhannam

(2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication 38(3): 356–381.

Besley

O’Hara

Dudo

(2019) Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0224039.

Brossard

Scheufele

Kim

Lewenstein

(2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 546–558.

Chaiken

(1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(5): 752–766.

Christiana

Neimand

(2017) Stop raising awareness already. Stanford Social Innovations Review, Spring. Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/stop_raising_awareness_already#

10.

COMPASS Science Communication (2019) Connecting. Available at: https://www.compassscicomm.org/

11.

Dillman

Smyth

Christian

(2009) Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

12.

Donner

(2014) Finding your place on the science—Advocacy continuum: An editorial essay. Climatic Change 124(1): 1–8.

13.

Dudo

Brossard

Shanahan

Scheufele

Morgan

Signorielli

(2011) Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research 38(6): 754–777.

14.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.

15.

Hendriks

Kienhues

Bromme

(2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE 10(10): e0139309.

16.

Hon

(1998) Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research 10(2): 103–135.

17.

Horst

(2013) A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication 35(6): 758–779.

18.

Liang

LY-F

Yeo

Scheufele

Brossard

Xenos

, et al. (2014) Building buzz. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(4): 772–791.

19.

Loroño-Leturiondo

Davies

(2018) Responsibility and science communication: Scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5(2): 170–185.

20.

Montano

Kasprzyk

(2015) Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: Glanz

(ed.) Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

21.

National Science Board (2012) Chapter 7, science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators, 18 July. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/

22.

National Science Board (2018) Chapter 7, science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/highlights

23.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. New York: Springer.

24.

Pielke

(2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Rice

Atkin

(2013) Public Communication Campaigns, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Simis

Madden

Cacciatore

Yeo

(2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science 25(4): 400–414.

27.

Yuan

Dudo

Besley

(2019) Scientific societies’ support for public engagement: An interview study. International Journal of Science Education, Part B. Epub ahead of print 9 February. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2019.1576240.

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.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB

Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material