Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers (n = 24) on the role of objectives and goals in training efforts suggest that trainers believe that scientists come to training with a range of long-term goals in mind. However, trainers appear to focus on teaching communication skills and are relatively unlikely to focus on identifying specific communication objectives as a means of achieving scientists’ goals. The communication objective that trainers consistently report emphasizing is knowledge building. Other potential objectives such as fostering excitement, building trust, and reframing issues were rarely raised. Research aimed at helping trainers foster strategic communication capacity is proposed.

Keywords

qualitative interviews scientists’ perception of the public training goals objectives

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allum

N. C.

Sturgis

Tabourazi

Brunton-Smith

(2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35-54. doi:10.1077/0963662506070159

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2015). Center for public engagement with science and technology. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/

The Banff Center. (2015). Science communications 2015. Retrieved from http://www.banffcentre.ca/programs/program.aspx?id=1243

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35, 56-85. doi:10.1177/1075547012440634

Bauer

M. W.

Allum

Miller

(2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287

Besley

J. C.

(2015). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy, 42, 201-214. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Storksdieck

(2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186

Besley

J. C.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743

Besley

J. C.

S. H.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2013). Predicting scientist’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 971-987. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315

10.

Besley

J. C.

Tanner

A. H.

(2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33, 239-263. doi:10.1177/1075547010386972

11.

Blok

Jensen

Kaltoft

(2008). Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 189-209. doi:10.1077/0963662506070176

12.

Bodmer

(1985). The public understanding of science. Paper presented at the The 17th J.D. Bernal Lecture, Birkbeck College, London.

13.

Broom

G. M.

Dozier

D. M.

(1986). Advancement for public relations role models. Public Relations Review, 12(1), 37-56. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(86)80039-X

14.

Broom

G. M.

Smith

G. D.

(1979). Testing the practitioner’s impact on clients. Public Relations Review, 5(3), 47-59. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(79)80027-2

15.

Cicerone

(2010). Ensuring integrity in science. Science, 327(5966), 624.

16.

Davies

S. R.

(2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434. doi:10.1177/1075547009316222

17.

Delli Carpini

M. X.

Cook

F. L.

Jacobs

L. R

. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630

18.

Dozier

D. M.

Broom

G. M.

(1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3-26. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0701_02

19.

Dozier

D. M.

Ehling

W. P.

(1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us about their effects. In Grunig

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Dudo

A. D.

Kahlor

AbiGhannam

Lazard

Liang

M.-C.

(2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 841-844. doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.194

21.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

A. D.

(2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 299-314. doi:10.1177/107769900908600203

22.

Fischhoff

(1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 2, 137-144. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x

23.

Fiske

S. T.

Dupree

(2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593-13597. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317505111

24.

Grunig

Hunt

(1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

25.

Grunig

J. E.

Grunig

L. A.

(1989). Toward a theory of public relations behavior in organizations: Reviewof a program of researcb. In Grunig

J. E.

Grunig

L. A.

(Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. I, pp. 27-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

26.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

Namey

E. E.

(2012). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

27.

Hocking

J. E.

McDermott

Stacks

D. W.

(2003). Communication research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

28.

Holmes

P. A.

(1996, April 18). Evaluation: What is more important than who. Inside PR, p. 2.

29.

Hon

L. C.

(1998). Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 103-135. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1002_02

30.

Hon

L. C.

Grunig

J. E.

(1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/measuring-relationships/

31.

S. S.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171-192. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017

32.

Kahan

D. M.

Braman

Slovic

Gastil

Cohen

(2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.341

33.

Kahlor

L. A.

Dudo

Liang

M.-C.

AbiGhannam

(2015). What are you saying? Challenges and opportunities for increasing visibility and understanding of indoor microbiological research. Indoor and Built Environment, 24, 682-688. doi:10.1177/1420326X14531000

34.

Katz

Kahn

R. L.

(1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

35.

Kendall

(1996). Public relations campaigns strategies: Planning for implementation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

36.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (Rev. updated 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

37.

Leshner

A. I.

(2006). Science and public engagement. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/SciencePublic-Engagement/25084

38.

Leshner

A. I.

(2015). Bridging the opinion gap. Science, 347(6221), 459. doi:10.1126/science.aaa7477

39.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

40.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705

41.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

42.

Logan

R. A.

(2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002004

43.

Maranta

Guggenheim

Gisler

Pohl

(2003). The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociologica, 46, 150-165. doi:10.1177/0001699303046002005

44.

McCallie

Bell

Lohwater

Falk

J. H.

Lehr

J. L.

Lewenstein

B. V.

. . . Wiehe

(2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/eth_fac/12/

45.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46.

Miller

Fahy

., & The ESConet Team. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31, 116-126. doi:10.1177/1075547009339048

47.

Morse

J. M.

(1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook for qualitative research (pp. 220–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Napolitano

(2015). Why more scientists are needed in the public square. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/why-more-scientists-are-needed-in-the-public-square-46451

49.

National Academy of Sciences. (2012). The science of science communication. Retrieved from http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/science-communication.html

50.

National Academy of Sciences. (2013). The science of science communication II. Retrieved from http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/agenda-science-communication-II.html

51.

National Research Council. (Ed.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

52.

Neeley

Goldman

(2013). #GradSciComm: Rolling up our sleeves. COMPASS Online. Retrieved from http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/12/03/gradscicomm-rolling-up-our-sleeves/

53.

Nisbet

M. C.

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

L. A.

Stout

P. A.

(Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40-67). New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2015). Framing, the media, and risk communication in policy debates. In Cho

Reimer

McComas

K. A.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication (pp. 216-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041

56.

Peters

H. P.

Brossard

de Cheveigne

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

Tsuchida

(2008). Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204-205. doi:10.1126/science.1157780

57.

Pinholster

(2015). AAAS unveils Alan I. Leshner Leadership Institute. American Association for the Advancement of Science Newsroom. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-unveils-alan-i-leshner-leadership-institute

58.

Salmon

R. A.

Priestley

R. K.

Goven

(2015). The reflexive scientist: An approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4

59.

Smith

Baron

English

Galindo

Goldman

McLeod

. . . Neeley

(2013). COMPASS: Navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001552. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001552

60.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Trench

Miller

(2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39, 722-731. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs090

62.

van Ruler

. (2004). The communication grid: An introduction of a model of four communication strategies. Public Relations Review, 30, 123-143. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.01.002

Qualitative Interviews With Science Communication Trainers About Communication Objectives and Goals

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References