This study aims to contribute to our empirical understanding of the factors and processes that lead scientists to engage in public communication. Using a national sample, this study identifies key factors that contribute to scientists’ public communication activity, including a scientist’s status, communication autonomy, use of print and online media, intrinsic rewards, communication training, perceived behavioral controls, normative beliefs, and perceived level of medialization. In addition to these findings, this study aims to extend our understanding of the popularization process by injecting theoretical rationale, accounting for indirect pathways of influence, and proposing a baseline model that can be refined over time.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarrracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
4.
BakkerT. P.de VreeseC. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38, 451-470.
5.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 3-11.
7.
Bensaude-VincentB. (2001). A geneology of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 99-113.
8.
BentleyP.KyvikS. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 48-63.
9.
BodmerW. (1986). The public understanding of science (17th J. D. Bernal Lecture). Birkbeck College, London, England.
10.
BoltanskiL.MaldidierP. (1970). Carriere Scientifique, Moral Scientifique et Vulgarisation. Social Science Information, 9, 99-118.
BrownC. P.PropstS. M.WoolleyM. (2004). Report: Helping researchers make the case for science. Science Communication, 25, 294-303.
13.
BrumfielG. (2009). Breaking the convention?Nature, 459, 1050-1051.
14.
ChaffeeS.FrankS. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48-58.
15.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.
16.
CiceroneR. (2010). Ensuring integrity in science. Science, 327, 624.
CraigJ. L.LernerN.PoeM. (2008). Innovation across the curriculum: Three case studies in teaching science and engineering communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51, 280-301.
19.
CrichtonM. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities. Science, 283, 1461-1463.
20.
CroneW. C.DunwoodyS.RediskeR. K.AckermanS. A.Zenner PetersenG. M.YarosR. A. (2011). Informal science education: A practicum for graduate students. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 291-304.
21.
DaviesS. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434.
22.
DeanC. (2009). Am I making myself clear? A scientist’s guide to talking to the public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
24.
DudoA.BrossardD.ShanahanJ.ScheufeleD. A.MorganM.SignorielliN. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38, 754-777.
25.
DunwoodyS. (1986). The scientist as source. In DunwoodyS.FriedmanS. M.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Free Press.
26.
DunwoodyS.BrossardD.DudoA. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Prediciting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299-314.
27.
EvelandW. P.ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237.
28.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition (2 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
29.
GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists: Communication through the media. Science Communication, 18, 265-282.
30.
GerbnerG. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3, 109-115.
31.
GoldB. D. (2001). The Aldo Leopold Leadership Program–Training environmental scientists to be civic scientists. Science Communication, 23(1), 41-49.
32.
GoodellR. (1977). The visible scientists. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
HartzJ.ChappellR. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
35.
HigginsE. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
HigginsE. T.KingG. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In CantorN.KihlstromJ. F. (Eds.), Personality, cognition and social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
HolbertR. L.StephensonM. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556-572.
38.
JacobsonN.ButterillD.GoeringP. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25, 246-259.
39.
JensenP. (2011). A statistical picture of PCST activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 26-36.
40.
JensenP.RouquierJ.-B.KreimerP.CroissantY. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science & Public Policy, 35, 527-541.
KiernanV. (2003). Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication, 21, 3-13.
43.
KohutA.KeeterS.DohertyC.DimockM. (2009). Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
44.
KreimerP.LevinL.JensenP. (2011). PCST by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 37-47.
45.
MarkusH.ZajoncR. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137-229). New York, NY: Random House.
46.
Martín-SempereM. J.Garzón-GarciaB.Rey-RochaJ. (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.
47.
MeredithD. (2010). Explaining Research: How to Reach Key Audiences to Advance Your Work. New York: Oxford University Press.
48.
McQuailD. (2005). Mass communication theory (5th ed.). London, England: Sage.
49.
MillerS.FahyD. (2009). Can Science Communication Workshops Train Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement? The ESConet Experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116-126.
50.
MooneyC.KirshenbaumS. (2009). Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books.
51.
MorganM.ShanahanJ.SignorielliN. (2009). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theories and research (3 ed., pp. 34-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
National Science Board. (2010). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm
53.
NeresiniF.BucchiM. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 64-79.
54.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.MoyP.BrossardD.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608.
55.
PearsonG. (2001). Participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 121-137.
56.
PearsonG.PringleS. M.ThomasJ. N. (1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 279-289.
57.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveigneS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS. (2008a). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204-205.
58.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveigneS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS. (2008b). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30, 266-276.
59.
PetersH. P.HeinrichsH.JungA.KallfassM.PetersenI. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShunkeS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 71-92). Dordecht, Netherlands: Springer.
60.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2008a, August, 17). Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences new blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf
PhillipsD. P.KanterE. J.BednarczykB.TastadP. L. (1991). Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1180-1183.
63.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
64.
PriestS. (2008). Biotechnology, nanotechnology, media, and public opinion. In DavidK.ThompsonP. B. (Eds.), What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs (pp. 221-234). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
ShrumL. J. (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 50-73). New York, NY: Routledge.
68.
Torres-AlberoC.Fernández-EsquinasM.Rey-RochaJ.Martín-SempereM. J. (2011). Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 12-25.
69.
TsfatiY.CohenJ.GuntherA. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166.
70.
WeingartP. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879.
71.
WeinsteinN. D.KleinW. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8.
72.
WillemsJ.WoudstraE. (1993). The use by biologists and engineers of non-specialist information sources and its relation to their social involvement. Scientometrics, 28, 205-216.
73.
WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (1980). The processing of social stimulus information: A conceptual integration. In HastieR.OstromT. M.EbbessenE. B.WyerR. S.HamiltonD. L.CarlstonD. E. (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 227-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
