A widespread culture supporting public engagement activities in higher education is desirable but difficult to establish. Drawing on social cognitive theory, this science communication project aimed to enhance culture change in engineering by developing communication skillsets of early-career engineers, particularly supporting female engineers as role models. Engineers received training in storytelling to present at live events, enhanced by peer group social persuasion and vicarious modeling. A science communication coordinator and senior management endorsement removed barriers to participation. Evaluation showed engineers’ self-efficacy levels significantly increased. Qualitative data highlighted a developing culture of engagement but purposive selection of women proved controversial.
AdamsR.EvangelouD.EnglishL.De FigueiredoA. D.MousoulidesN.PawleyA. L.. . .DeI. A. S. (2011). Multiple perspectives on engaging future engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 48-88. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00004.x
2.
AndersonS. L.BetzN. E. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and relation to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 98-117. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1753
ArcherL.DawsonE.DeWittJ.SeakinsA.WongB. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 922-948. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227
5.
ArcherL.DeWittJ.OsborneJ.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB. (2012a). “Balancing acts”: Elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96, 967-989. doi:10.1002/sce.21031
6.
ArcherL.DeWittJ.OsborneJ.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB. (2012b). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 881-908. doi:10.3102/0002831211433290
7.
ArcherL.DeWittJ.OsborneJ.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB. (2013). “Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous”: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations 1. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21, 171-194. doi:10.1080/14681366.2012.748676
8.
BanduraA. (1976). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
10.
BanduraA. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology & Health, 13, 623-649. doi:10.1080/08870449808407422
11.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303
12.
BanduraA. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 143-164.
13.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In UrdanT.PajaresF. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
14.
BanduraA.BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. VPastorelliC. (2008). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Child Development, 72, 187-206. doi:10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836
15.
BanduraA.LockeE. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
16.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 3-11. doi:10.1177/0963662510394457
17.
BesleyJ. C.NisbetM. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743
18.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 22, 971-987. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315
19.
BetzD. E.SekaquaptewaD. (2012). My fair physicist? Feminine math and science role models demotivate young girls. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 738-746. doi:10.1177/1948550612440735
20.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
21.
BuckG. A.Plano ClarkV. L.Leslie-PeleckyD.LuY.Cerda-LizarragaP. (2008). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: A feminist approach. Science Education, 92, 688-707. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20257
22.
BurchellK.FranklinS.HoldenK. (2009). Public culture as professional science: Final report of the ScoPE project (Scientists on public engagement: From communication to deliberation?). Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37115/
23.
CarringtonB.McPheeA. (2008). Boys’ “underachievement” and the feminization of teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34, 109-120. doi:10.1080/02607470801979558
24.
ChenJ. A.UsherE. L. (2013). Profiles of the sources of science self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.11.002
25.
CheryanS.SiyJ. O.VichayapaiM.DruryB. J.KimS. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656-664. doi:10.1177/1948550611405218
26.
Crettaz von RotenF. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52-75. doi:10.1177/1075547010378658
DeclerckC. H.BooneC.De BrabanderB. (2006). On feeling in control: A biological theory for individual differences in control perception. Brain and Cognition, 62(2), 143–176. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2006.04.004
29.
DeWittJ.OsborneJ.ArcherL.DillonJ.WillisB.WongB. (2011). Young children’s aspirations in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1037-1063. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.608197
30.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057. doi:10.1177/0956797610377342
31.
DruryB. J.SiyJ. O.CheryanS. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 265-269. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935
32.
DudoA. (2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501. doi:10.1177/1075547012460845
33.
DudoA.BesleyJ. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PloS One, 11(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
Fogg-RogersL.BayJ. L.BurgessH.PurdyS. C. (2015). “Knowledge is power”: A mixed methods study exploring adult audience preferences for engagement and learning formats over three years of a health science festival. Science Communication, 37, 419-451.
39.
Fogg-RogersL.EdmondsJ.LewisF. (2016). Paired peer learning through engineering education outreach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 75-90.
40.
Fogg-RogersL.SardoM.BoushelC. (2015). Robots vs animals: Learning from the ingenuity of nature. Final summary report. London, England. Retrieved from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/26062/
41.
Fogg-RogersL.SardoM.GrandA. (2015). Beyond dissemination: Science communication as impact. Journal of Science Communication, 4, CO1-C07. doi:1079-6533
42.
Fogg-RogersL.WilkinsonC.WeitkampE. (2015). Royal society education outreach evaluation. Retrieved from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/25834/
43.
FranceB.CridgeB.Fogg-RogersL. (2015). Organisational culture and its role in developing a sustainable science communication platform. International Journal of Science Education Part B. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21548455.2015.1106025
44.
GrandA.DaviesG.HollimanR.AdamsA. (2015). Mapping public engagement with research in a UK University. PLoS One, 10, e0121874. doi:10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0121874
45.
HavenK. (2007). Story proof: The science behind the startling power of story. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
46.
HoytC. L.SimonS. (2011). Female leaders: Injurious or inspiring role models for women?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 143-157. doi:10.1177/0361684310385216
47.
IllingworthS.RedfernJ.MillingtonS.GrayS. (2015). What’s in a name? Exploring the nomenclature of science communication in the UK. F1000Research, 4, 409. doi:10.12688/f1000research.6858.1
JeffersA. T.SaffermanA. G.SaffermanS. I. (2004). Understanding K–12 engineering outreach programs. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130(2). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2004)130:2(95)
50.
JohnsonD. R.EcklundE. H.LincolnA. E. (2014). Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Communication, 36(1), 81-105. doi:10.1177/1075547013499142
51.
KelleherC.PauschR. (2006). Motivating programming: Using storytelling to make computer programming attractive to middle school girls (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
52.
KimH. (2009, March). Changing future teachers’ perceptions of scientists using digital storytelling. School Science Review, 90(332), 109-113.
LaursenS.ListonC.ThiryH.GrafJ. (2007). What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 49-64. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-05-0165
55.
LockwoodP. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36-46. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x
56.
MarcinkowskiF.KohringM.FürstS.FriedrichsmeierA. (2014). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36(1), 56-80. doi:10.1177/1075547013494022
57.
MarraR. M.BogueB. (2006, June). Women engineering students’ self-efficacy: A longitudinal multi-institution study. Paper presented at the Women in Engineering Programs and Advocates Network conference. Retrieved from http://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/misc/ResearchPagePDFs/120_Marra-Women.pdf
58.
Martin-SempereM. J.Garzon-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(3), 349-369. doi:10.1177/0963662506067660
59.
MellorF. (2013). Twenty years of teaching science communication: A case study of imperial college’s master’s programme. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 916-926. doi:10.1177/0963662513489386
60.
MulderH. A. J.LongneckerN.DavisL. S. (2008). The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication, 30, 277-287. doi:10.1177/1075547008324878
61.
NeresiniF.BucchiM. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 64-79. doi:10.1177/0963662510388363
62.
PalmerS. E.SchibeciR. A. (2012). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies?Public Understanding of Science, 23, 511-527. doi:10.1177/0963662512455295
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263. doi:10.1177/1075547007308009
65.
RobinB. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47, 220-228. doi:10.1080/00405840802153916
66.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 251-290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724
67.
ShapiroJ. R.NeubergS. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 107-130. doi:10.1177/1088868306294790
68.
ShullP. J.WeinerM. (2002). Thinking inside the box: Self-efficacy of women in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18, 438-446. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol18-4/IJEE1289.pdf
69.
SinghR.FouadN. A.FitzpatrickM. E.LiuJ. P.CappaertK. J.FiguereidoC. (2013). Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers’ intentions to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 281–294. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.05.007
70.
SonnertG.FoxM. F.AdkinsK. (2007). Undergraduate women in science and engineering: Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 1333-1356. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00505.x
71.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
TrenchB.MillerS. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39, 722-731. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs090
74.
XuY. J.MartinC. L. (2011). Gender differences in STEM disciplines: From the aspects of informal professional networking and faculty career development. Gender Issues, 28, 134-154. doi:10.1007/s12147-011-9104-5
75.
ZeldinA. L.BritnerS. L.PajaresF. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1036-1058. doi:10.1002/tea.20195
