No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices
Abstract
Scientists are increasingly being called upon to play a more prominent role in the interface of science and society by contributing to science literacy in ways that support two-way exchanges with the public. However, many remain reluctant to participate in public engagement activities in part because they feel they lack relevant skills and experience. We surveyed scientists trained on engagement through a nationwide program called Portal to the Public and examined how participation in the program may have influenced their self-efficacy, commitment and attitudes about outreach, and perceived benefits from conducting outreach based on two-way exchange with lay audiences. Participating scientists who responded to the survey reported being deeply involved in and highly committed to hands-on interactive public outreach, felt their engagement skills had improved, and even viewed benefits of their engagement training that extended into university teaching and career development. Our findings suggest a comprehensive engagement training model, which incorporates learning theory, helps scientists build their own outreach strategies, provides opportunities to practice, and offers easy access to audiences, can have a sustained impact on disposition, perceived skills, and type of outreach conducted by scientists interested in deeper engagement with the public.
... However, the nascent research on this topic has primarily focused on large or disconnected samples of scientists from specific fields or from large scientific societies (Bennett et al., 2019). The general sense of this work is that while most scientists have not thought too deeply about communication, most are eager to participate (Besley, Dudo, Yuan, and Lawrence, 2018;Rose et al., 2020;Stylinski et al., 2018) and willing to pursue a range of goals , objectives Stylinski et al., 2018), and tactics . They are especially likely to make communication choices when they see these choices as ethical and likely to be successful (Bennett et al., 2019). ...
... However, the nascent research on this topic has primarily focused on large or disconnected samples of scientists from specific fields or from large scientific societies (Bennett et al., 2019). The general sense of this work is that while most scientists have not thought too deeply about communication, most are eager to participate (Besley, Dudo, Yuan, and Lawrence, 2018;Rose et al., 2020;Stylinski et al., 2018) and willing to pursue a range of goals , objectives Stylinski et al., 2018), and tactics . They are especially likely to make communication choices when they see these choices as ethical and likely to be successful (Bennett et al., 2019). ...
... Our sense is that much of the research on improving science communication focuses on training individual scientists to speak in clear and vivid ways, including telling stories and participating in two-way conversations (Bennett et al., 2019;Dudo et al., 2021). Similarly, much of the previous research on scientists has focused on their views about communicating (Copple et al., 2020;Rose et al., 2020;Stylinski et al., 2018). The current manuscript could thus be understood as questioning this somewhat limited focus inasmuch as it focuses on the potential need for training that involves working with professional communicators to use strategic thinking to decide whenand with whomtools such as stories and conversation make sense (Besley, 2020). ...
This study initially reports on qualitative interviews (n = 17) with scientists at two Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites in the northeastern United States. These interviews suggest the need for greater attention to the role of communication professionals and institutional leadership in fostering high-quality public engagement. The study also reports on a follow-up quantitative survey (n = 68) conducted to better understand the degree to which LTER scientists’ views about communication professionals were meaningfully associated with perceptions about the need for robust engagement funding. The project was initially designed based on the Integrated Behavioral Model to assess how individual LTER scientists’ engagement-related attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs affected their communication activities. However, the combined results highlight the potential value of additional research and theorization aimed at better understanding the factors that might lead to greater cooperation between scientists and organizational communicators.
... Scientists' perceptions of their abilities may contribute to their public engagement activity level. Self-perceived lack of personal communication skills and incompetence in engagement have been cited as reasons scientists avoid PES (Ecklund et al. 2012, Singh et al. 2014, Stylinski et al. 2018. Some SFS respondents (10%) did not feel they had the skills to be successful in PES. ...
... Only 6% of respondents felt nothing was limiting their PES opportunities. Training or mentoring programs to prepare scientists for outreach are rare (Devonshire and Hathway 2014, Singh et al. 2014, Stofer and Wolfe 2018, Stylinski et al. 2018; however, such opportunities could improve scientists' perceptions of their own abilities (Poliakoff and Webb 2007, Ecklund et al. 2012, Singh et al. 2014, Cerrato et al. 2018, Stylinski et al. 2018, in addition to improving PES itself (Concannon and Grenon 2016). If incorporated into student courses, PES training programs could alleviate time-constraint issues with professional development (Devonshire and Hathway 2014), bring additional lenses and uses to class material, and prepare students for careers where communicating with the public is key . ...
... Only 6% of respondents felt nothing was limiting their PES opportunities. Training or mentoring programs to prepare scientists for outreach are rare (Devonshire and Hathway 2014, Singh et al. 2014, Stofer and Wolfe 2018, Stylinski et al. 2018; however, such opportunities could improve scientists' perceptions of their own abilities (Poliakoff and Webb 2007, Ecklund et al. 2012, Singh et al. 2014, Cerrato et al. 2018, Stylinski et al. 2018, in addition to improving PES itself (Concannon and Grenon 2016). If incorporated into student courses, PES training programs could alleviate time-constraint issues with professional development (Devonshire and Hathway 2014), bring additional lenses and uses to class material, and prepare students for careers where communicating with the public is key . ...
Across disciplines, scientists are changing how they interact with the public and are increasingly aware of the benefits to be gained by all parties from sincere public engagement. Rather than a 1-way flow of information from scientists to the public, public engagement with science focuses on a 2-way conversation among scientists and stakeholders to better inform research questions, understand scientific findings, and make positive change. However, despite its benefits, participating in public engagement may present challenges for scientists because of institutional and personal barriers, including lack of training, time, funding, and perceived value. Based on the literature and a survey of Society for Freshwater Science members, we describe barriers to public engagement and strategies for how these barriers can be overcome, such as increasing support for public engagement by employers and integrating public engagement training programs into curricula and professional development programs. This paper, along with the following series of papers, provides a guide for aquatic scientists to enhance their public engagement experiences and improve the quality of their research through public engagement with science.
... Despite the evidence that effective science communication needs to move beyond the transmission model to one of relationship building and encouraging open-minded exchange between scientists and the public, few outreach training programs for scientists focus on these elements [Stylinski et al., 2018]. Thus, there is little empirical evidence available to guide the development of more successful public engagement training that helps scientists connect and engage with public audiences, particularly those who do not typically seek out science activities. ...
... Similarly, Portal to the Public (PoP) was developed in 2007 to support the efforts of informal science education institutions to build programs that allow for face-to-face interactions between scientists and public audiences [Stylinski et al., 2018]. The PoP framework centered on enhancing scientists' two-way exchanges to support targeted learning outcomes and encourages scientists to engage directly with audiences, often through interactive hands-on activities to engage audiences in discovery-based learning. ...
Scientists are increasingly expected to share their research with the public using learner-centered strategies that build trust, such as engaging in relationship-building activities. A growing number of science communication training programs have been developed to address this need but little is known about whether and how scientists value such programs. In this paper we examine scientists' experiences with the STEM Ambassadors Program (STEMAP), a science communication training program that aims to build relationships for open-minded exchange between scientists and the public. We discuss benefits and challenges for scientists when using the STEMAP model for public outreach.
... However, it is important to underline that SC cannot be limited to a simple translation, as it is affected, for instance, by the topic/scientific field to be addressed, the characteristics of the audience and, above all, by the researchers' skills to communicate the message. It is also worth noting that according to the Eurobarometer 2021 [8], the negative characteristic most commonly associated with researchers is 'bad at communicating', which stresses the urgency and the challenge that researchers need to cope in a constantly changing world [9] In this sense, SC training has an important role to play in achieving SC aims [10]- [12] since it helps to empower and improve researchers' engagement efforts [13]- [15]. ...
... SC training has an important role to play in achieving SC aims [10]- [12] since it helps to empower and improve researchers' engagement efforts [13]- [15]. Regarding graduate students, it is well recognized that when SC training is linked to graduate programs there is a significant increase in researchers' confidence in doing SC [30]- [32], as well as promotes graduate students' interest in SC and also predicts their intentions to pursue a career in science [33]. ...
... • Many ecologists engage regularly with the public about science and in scientific investigations • One measure of scientists' public engagement is to apply a classification scheme to determine the extent and types of communication about these efforts within scholarly literature • Application of this scheme indicated that public engagement efforts are infrequently communicated in professional ecology journals (comprising ~1% of articles published) • Increasing the number and type of public engagement articles in ecological and other scientific publications is one small but important way to expand and improve understanding and practice of these science-society interactions to help them engage with and demonstrate the impact of research in their communities and society" (https://resea rchin socie ty.org/about). Science communication and education researchers are providing a sound foundation for these efforts by reporting on scientists' attitudes and perceptions of impact, as well as approaches and training associated with scientists and public engagement activities (eg Besley et al. 2018b;Stylinski et al. 2018;Llorente et al. 2019). Despite this growth in practice and understanding, much remains unknown about scientists' involvement in public engagement. ...
... For example, the scope of Public Understanding of Science includes "public communication of science and scientific expertise in traditional and social media" (https://journ als.sagep ub.com/aims-scope/ PUS), while the scope of International Journal of Science Education Part B includes "perspectives on communication about science and technology of individuals and groups of citizens of all ages, scientists and engineers" (https://bit.ly/3FVHJgI). These and other journals publish many articles related to PES and scientists' training, attitudes, objectives, and more (eg Besley et al. 2018b;Stylinski et al. 2018;Copple et al. 2020). However, many researchers within science disciplines rarely or never read these publications, as they are aimed at social scientists and educators. ...
Scientists are increasingly encouraged to engage with the public about science. Key to normalizing and advancing “public engagement with science” (PES) is the dissemination of such activities within the science literature. We developed a classification scheme to assess the extent and type of PES articles in ecology‐themed scholarly journals. Our review indicated that although many ecologists interact with the public and intend to maintain this interaction, only a small minority publish about PES efforts, perspectives, strategies, successes, and challenges in ecology journals regularly read by their peers. We suggest that publication of PES in disciplinary journals offers a means of both providing professional credit and improving engagement practices. Thus, we encourage ecologists to write articles about their PES efforts, urge editors and reviewers to be responsive to such submissions, and recommend more consistent use of common PES keywords in science articles.
... While science communication training is an activity that individual scientists engage in to build communication skills, their access to training opportunities can depend on the resources and opportunities offered by their institution (Ecklund et al., 2012). A number of studies have explored the positive effects of science communication training on interest in engagement activities, as shown with interactive public outreach (Stylinski et al., 2018) and public communication of science and technology (Dudo, 2013). Others have revealed no significant relationship between training and participation in face-to-face or online engagement (Dudo et al., 2014. ...
... In addition, in line with some previous studies (e.g. Dudo, 2013;Stylinski et al., 2018), we find that science communication training is significantly associated with participation in public scholarship. Thus, universities interested in increasing scientists' public engagement efforts may consider encouraging scientists to participate in science communication training. ...
The call for public scholarship to emphasize the broader impacts of science has raised questions about how universities can support this work among their scientists. This study quantitatively assesses how institutional factors shape scientists’ participation in public scholarship, a subset of public engagement focusing on scientists’ involvement in public debate and democratic decision-making related to science policy. Based on a 2018 survey of scientists from 46 US land-grant universities ( N = 6,242), hierarchical linear modeling results show that institutional factors, including tenure guidelines and the extent of government funding, play a minor role in influencing scientists’ public scholarship participation. More importantly, scientists’ perceptions of the university climate on support for engagement, including support from high-level administrators and for graduate students, are significant predictors of participation in public scholarship. Ultimately, these findings support the recommendation that universities should coordinate individual motivations with institutional missions to support a broader culture of public engagement.
... However, Copple et al. (2020) model based on a survey of over 500 scientists working at United States universities found that training can influence willingness to engage by building confidence, contribute to more positive attitudes towards audiences, and that the more training a scientist receives, the more willing they are likely to be to engage. Stylinski et al. (2018) also identified multiple benefits, including that training can assist scientists to build their communication strategies, have more confidence in their abilities, and encourage them to engage more frequently. Research has also identified that communication training can have positive aspects on other areas of a researcher's work, such as teaching and presenting in general (Illingworth and Roop, 2015;Stylinski et al., 2018). ...
... Stylinski et al. (2018) also identified multiple benefits, including that training can assist scientists to build their communication strategies, have more confidence in their abilities, and encourage them to engage more frequently. Research has also identified that communication training can have positive aspects on other areas of a researcher's work, such as teaching and presenting in general (Illingworth and Roop, 2015;Stylinski et al., 2018). However, most research or evaluation of the impact of training has focused on the impacts that trainers or trainees perceive, rather than whether audiences perceive improved communication skills as a result of training (Rubega et al., 2020). ...
Science communication is at a pivotal stage in its development due to the emergence of digital communication platforms that are not only presenting new opportunities but are also leading to new challenges. In this context, science communicators, who can include scientists, researchers, curators, journalists and other types of content producer, may require new types of preparation and support to engage with multiple audiences, across multiple channels. Despite the increasing need for adequate science communication training, research in the field is sparse and oftentimes refers to single case studies, calling for more comprehensive perspectives on what is needed and what is offered to equip future science communicators with relevant competences to cope with the changing science communication ecosystem. Against this backdrop, this paper takes two approaches, drawing on data from RETHINK, a European project comprising seven countries, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. First, we report on findings from a questionnaire survey completed by 459 science communicators across the seven countries, focusing on how science communicators develop their communication skills, the types of training they have received and the types of training they would like to undertake. Second, we assess exploratory data collected from 13 different science communication degree programs regarding how they seek to embed and consider issues of digital transformation within their curricula. On the basis of both analyses, we will introduce ideas for a competence framework that addresses not only working knowledge and skills but also professional (self-)reflection and the overall mindset and worldviews of students, whilst offering capacity for increased consideration of the role of digital transformation.
... Scientific leaders continue to implore their colleagues to engage more proactively with public audiences about their work and its value (Leshner, 2015;McNutt, 2016;Napolitano, 2015;Thorp, 2020). This reinvigorated interest in science communication and civic science (Christopherson et al., 2018) has been coupled with rapid growth of training organizations and programs designed to help empower and improve scientists' engagement efforts (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017a;Smith, 2020;Stylinski et al., 2018;Trench & Miller, 2012). However, minimal scholarshipempirical or otherwise-has made science communication training its focal point. ...
... Professional science communication training programs are a key conduit through which STEM professionals can strengthen their communication capacity and impact (Besley & Tanner, 2011;Salas et al., 2012). They are positioned to convey insights from communication research to scientists (Miller et al., 2009;Trench & Miller, 2012) and these programs have been growing rapidly in recent years (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2017b;Baron, 2016;Brown et al., 2004;Gold, 2001;Heath et al., 2014;Peters et al., 2008b;Smith et al., 2013;Stylinski et al., 2018). ...
This study identifies key characteristics of current science communication training programs based in North America. We report findings from semistructured interviews conducted with science communication trainers ( N = 32) that examined programs’ curricula, trainees, and impacts. Findings suggest that the current landscape of science communication training is one where a range of well-intentioned individuals and groups provide guidance to mostly self-selecting scientists. Training typically involves helping scientists find and refine their own message and then expecting these individuals to find their own opportunities to communicate. Programs commonly emphasize technical communication skills more than strategy, rarely conduct robust evaluation, and are not typically designed to enhance inclusivity. Researcher-trainer partnerships can help maximize the reach and positive impacts of these programs.
... Nonetheless, given the importance of information in communicating risks for disaster preparedness [21], the fact that expenditure on information dissemination campaigns have increased exponentially in the last decade [96], and rising climate-change-induced disaster hazards [22], there has been a renewed interest among disaster management practitioners and scholars to investigate into the model and improve its effectiveness [20,23,24]. One of the key suggestions that has gained popularity in literature is the need to consider the effectiveness of IDM in the face of public engagement or community participation [17,[25][26][27]. ...
... Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample surveyed showed that 57% were male and 43% were females. In terms of the age cohort, 24.9% of the respondents were between the ages [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]35.5% between the ages 27-35, 19.1% between the ages 35-44 and the remaining 20.5% above the age of 45. Marital status of the respondents also showed that 48.5% were married, 43.0% were single, and the remaining 4.4% were either divorced or widowed. ...
... While the value of public engagement in potentially controversial scientific research is well established in international law and environmental justice literatures, scientific researchers can be resistant to engaging publics in deep and meaningful ways (Stylinski et al 2018, Murunga et al 2024. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) emphasizes in Principle 10 the importance of public participation in environmental decisionmaking. ...
Atmospheric methane removal (AMR) refers to a suite of emerging technologies and practices that destroy atmospheric methane. There is growing interest in AMR field trials to better understand the risks and benefits of various approaches. Building on rights-based rationales from international law and core principles of environmental justice, we argue that AMR field trials should not proceed before meaningful public engagement occurs. We also draw preliminary lessons from ocean fertilization and solar radiation management cases to highlight the significance of involving members of the public in conversation about climate intervention technologies in early stages of the research and development process. While we emphasize that engagement is not a checkbox for gaining social license, these cases illustrate how neglecting public engagement can be unnecessarily detrimental to proposed research. We further point to an enhanced weathering experiment to highlight how early engagement can foster ethical processes and outcomes, which enhance alignment of research with societal values. While empirical evidence does not yet support the argument that engagement always results in the outcomes researchers desire, it does always result in justice enhancing outcomes and should therefore be pursued regardless. We advocate for diverse engagement approaches based on the nature of the technology, with a focus on collaboration with impacted communities, the public, and international interdisciplinary researchers. To ensure responsible research practices, the article calls for the development of comprehensive governance frameworks and ethical guidelines for field trials.
... This study seeks to advance the discussion of dialogue and participation as primary indicators of communication quality (Bauer et al., 2007;Stylinski et al., 2018;Trench, 2008). Specifically, borrowing from the idea of "strategic science communication as planned behavior," (Besley & Dudo, 2022a), it uses behavior change theory to improve our understanding of several factors that could lead ecologists to prioritize considering community members' perspectives around research decisions at long-term research sites. ...
This study uses survey data to explore ecologists’ willingness to prioritize the behavioral goal of considering local community members’ perspectives in the context of research at Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. It finds that believing in the benefits of such listening is a relatively strong statistical predictor of expressing a willingness to prioritize listening. Neither normative beliefs nor agency beliefs were strong correlates of prioritizing listening. Women and younger scientists were more willing to prioritize listening as a goal. The study builds on the “strategic science communication as planned behavior” approach to try to better understand scientists’ communication choices.
... These messages are conveyed to the user with a new communication form, within a historical context claiming a more profound comprehension and transfer of scientific findings, where visual and sound arts can play a key role (Leudar 2018). The synergy between public research and art, with its capacity to evoke emotions, open perspectives and inspire collective action (Galimberti 2017), can produce impactful communication tools and foster engagement (Stylinsky et al. 2018). However, while aesthetics is an essential element, the scientific foundation of the work must not be compromised, and data should become transformative elements within artistic compositions, enhancing the depth and impact of the conveyed message (Gough 2014). ...
Simulation models are primary tools for synthesizing plant physiological knowledge, supporting farmers’ decisions, and predicting crop yields and functioning under climate change. The conventional approach within the scientific community consists of disseminating model outcomes through articles and technical reports, often impeding the share of knowledge among science, policy, and society. This work presents the mandala (modeled and abstracted plant), a simulation model translating crop phenology and physiology as a function of environmental drivers into symbols and sounds, focusing on plant responses to cold, drought, and heat stresses. The mandala has been realized with object-oriented (C#) and visual (vvvv) programming, and the source code is free for extension and improvement. We tested the mandala in six heterogeneous climates to show the potential to convey essential information on maize and wheat growth and responses to abiotic stresses. Despite lacking in artistic refinement, this work attempts to illustrate that visual and sound art can serve as unconventional means of disseminating crop model insights while showing their potential to enhance the breadth of information delivered to the public.
... Não se pode invalidar totalmente esse ideal formativo, mas para avançar no debate é necessário entender que outros elementos também devem estar presentes, conforme apontado anteriormente. Stylinski et al. (2018), por exemplo, reforçam a necessidade de um programa formativo abrangente visando o desenvolvimento de engajamento público nas práticas de divulgação. Os autores apontam a relevância da abordagem de aspectos relativos às teorias de aprendizagem e reflexões sobre os modelos de comunicação pública da ciência. ...
Este trabalho apresenta e discute aspectos relevantes de uma experiência extensionista envolvendo formação inicial e continuada em divulgação científica. A iniciativa, vinculada à Universidade Federal do ABC, foi constituída por meio de um curso oferecido na modalidade à distância devido à pandemia, tendo como participantes professores da educação básica e de nível superior, graduandos e pós-graduandos, divulgadores científicos independentes e profissionais que atuam em museus. Foram realizados encontros síncronos para abordagem de temas que abrangessem aspectos teóricos e práticos relativos à divulgação científica. Como forma de conclusão do processo formativo, os trinta e dois cursistas concluintes foram divididos em grupos menores, que mesclavam as diferentes categorias de inscritos, para elaboração do trabalho final que compreendia um plano de divulgação científica envolvendo escolas, museus e universidade. Os resultados da análise dos projetos e das respostas a um questionário indicam que os cursistas puderam expressar suas dúvidas, opiniões e impressões a respeito da divulgação científica durante o processo de formação, a partir do olhar proveniente do ambiente profissional em que atuavam. Como o grupo era heterogêneo, foi possível perceber como a divulgação científica é representada e apropriada de formas diversas nos diferentes contextos profissionais. As atividades realizadas constituíram-se como importante componente formativo para os cursistas. Os mesmos destacaram os seguintes pontos: elementos teóricos, elementos práticos, grupos diversificados e desenvolvimento de habilidades de relação com o público.
... In this sense, Science Communication (SC) training has an important role to play in promoting researchers' effectiveness within public interaction [3], [4] since it intends to improve and develop researchers' skills and perspectives regarding SC [5]- [8]. Simultaneously, by addressing researchers' lack of skills, SC training also promotes their confidence in engaging with society [9], [10]. ...
... To draft and validate it, we held a workshop at the 2019 ILTER Open Science Meeting and asked the 14 attending science professionals to create a preliminary list of reasons why scientists would participate in CS, as well as a list of associated challenges. Building from this and related literature and inventories (e.g., Riesch et al., 2013;Golumbic et al., 2017;Tredick et al., 2017;Robertson Evia et al., 2018;Stylinski et al., 2018), the first version of the questions was developed and then pilot-tested by a group of 14 environmental scientists who were not involved within ILTER (10 were nonnative English speakers). Based on the feedback from the pilot scientists, the questionnaire was revised and implemented on Qualtrics 3 , an established online questionnaire tool. ...
In the last decades, citizen science (CS) has experienced an increasing interest as a practice in which scientists and citizens collaborate to produce new knowledge for science, society and policy. Environmental and ecological sciences are among the most active in proposing CS activities and new models for citizen participation in research. In addition to environmental dimensions, these fields necessarily include social and cultural dimensions to confront the complex local and global environmental challenges. This is particularly evident in the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network, where the integration of social sciences has become a recognized priority. ILTER offers a valuable landscape to explore common CS features across a wide range of different cultural and socio-ecological contexts, as well as worldviews of science-society interactions. In 2020, we surveyed scientists working at ILTER sites across the globe to identify key features of CS initiatives in which they are/were involved and the levels of participation of the volunteers. We consider these features in the context of the internationally-developed “Ten Principles of Citizen Science” by examining scientific outcomes and societal/policy impact, type of volunteers’ involvement, and sharing of data/findings and feedbacks and acknowledging volunteers. Our results indicate that the ILTER community demonstrated a good predisposition toward environmentally-focused CS initiatives with diverse scientific questions including biodiversity, water quality, ecosystem services and climate change. Most of the respondents reported that the volunteers were involved mainly in collecting samples or recording data; some other activities, such as dissemination of the project conclusions and discussion and translation of the results into action, were also mentioned. Volunteers were usually trained for these initiatives and acknowledged in peer-reviewed publication, however data from the initiatives were only partially shared openly. We conclude with remarks and suggestions for expanding design and implementation of CS in the ILTER community.
... This suggests that passivity toward undergraduate student STEM community engagement is not a useful strategy; students will not naturally develop these skills without interventions or explicit opportunities in which to participate in these activities. Explicit training in public engagement has been shown to increase scientists' willingness to participate in such engagement (10,37). ...
While numerous studies have examined how scientists perceive doing public communication and engagement, there is limited research on undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) student attitudes toward these meaningful activities. Undergraduate students are more diverse than STEM faculty and may serve as boundary spanners in communities, so exploring their motivations and behaviors in STEM engagement is valuable. For scientists, confidence in communication skills is one driver of public engagement behavior. In this study, we utilized a survey to examine how undergraduate STEM students’ science communication skills as well as their science identity and science self-efficacy may drive motivation and behaviors in STEM community engagement. Our findings revealed that STEM students are motivated to do community engagement but lack opportunities to actually do these behaviors. Regression analyses revealed that year in academic progression did not increase STEM students’ attitudes and behaviors in community engagement. However, science communication skills, science identity, and science self-efficacy were all predictors of student motivation and behaviors in STEM community engagement. These findings suggest that universities should intentionally provide training in science communication, continue providing support for students developing science identity and self-efficacy, and develop opportunities for undergraduate STEM students to do science outreach and engagement activities.
... We found n = 81 published science communication trainings that met our data set requirements. The trainings represented n = 33 programs primarily targeted toward undergraduate students (Squier et al., 2006;Watson and Lom, 2008;Walton and Baker, 2009;Halverson and Tran, 2010;Cronje et al., 2011;Brownell et al., 2013a;Lemus et al., 2014;Goldina and Weeks, 2014;Whittington et al., 2014;Train and Miyamoto, 2017;Alder, 2018;Aune et al., 2018;Beason-Abmayr and Wilson, 2018;Begley, 2018;Clement et al., 2018;Grzyb et al., 2018;Kimber et al., 2018;Lancor and Schiebel, 2018;Lopes et al., 2018;Mayfield et al., 2018;Mehltretter Drury et al., 2018;Petzold and Dunbar, 2018;Pruneski, 2018;Rauschenbach et al., 2018;Schwingel, 2018;Kothari et al., 2019;Vollbrecht et al., 2019;Hoover et al., 2020;Métris, 2020;Garza et al., 2021;Kelp and Hubbard, 2021;Wack et al., 2021;Wrighting et al., 2021), n = 34 programs primarily targeted toward graduate students (Trumbull, 2002;Stamp and O'Brien, 2005;Laursen et al., 2007;Trautmann and Krasny, 2009;Crone et al., 2011;McBride et al., 2011;Webb et al., 2012;Bishop et al., 2014;Goodwin et al., 2014;Kohler et al., 2014;Kuehne et al., 2014;Neeley et al., 2014;National Research Council, 2014;Baker Jones and Seybold, 2016;LaRocca et al., 2016;Rohde et al., 2016;Clarkson et al., 2018;Gruss, 2018;Irizarry-Barreto et al., 2018;Johnson and Fankhauser, 2018;O'Keeffe and Bain, 2018;Ponzio et al., 2018;Rodgers et al., 2018;Smith-Keiling et al., 2018;Gillian-Daniel et al., 2020;Hendrickson et al., 2020;Kompella et al., 2020;Tomat, 2020;Derreth and Wear, 2021), and n = 14 programs primarily targeted toward scientists (Osmond et al., 2010;Bang et al., 2010;Mayhew and Hall, 2012;Bik and Goldstein, 2013;Crall et al., 2013;Kuehne et al., 2014;Clark et al., 2016;Greer et al., 2018;Stylinski et al., 2018;Stofer et al., 2019;MacArthur et al., 2020;Benedetti and Crouse, 2021;Lorke et al., 2021;Weber et al., 2021). The papers included in the analysis are included in Supplemental Table 1, along with a short summary of the type of program described in the article. ...
There has been an increased push for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students and scientists to be trained in science communication. Science communication researchers have outlined various models of how scientists interact with nonscientists-including deficit, dialogue, and inclusive approaches. We wanted to analyze whether published science communication curricula for STEM students and scientists exhibit features of inclusive science communication. We analyzed n = 81 published science communication trainings. We found an increase in such publications over the past two decades. We coded the trainings according to the science communication model they most closely follow, finding 40.7% deficit, 39.5% dialogue, and 19.8% inclusive. Trainings for STEM undergraduates were the least likely to provide training in the inclusive model. Finally, only 27.2% of publications included evaluation of the efficacy of the curriculum using an external scale or framework. These findings present opportunities: while it is positive that there are more published science communication curricula, science education and communication researchers should develop and publish more-inclusive science communication trainings for STEM students. Additionally, undergraduate students can and should begin their training in science communication with a focus on inclusivity not deficits. Finally, science education researchers should develop more standards for evaluating the efficacy of inclusive science communication training.
... In most cases, however, going public is very time-consuming and the actual research can suffer as a result. Of course, it can be argued that for modern scientists, communicating their results is as important as the research itself (Stylinski et al., 2018). ...
To communicate by visual means lies in the nature of humankind. Today, in the natural sciences, visualizations transfer data into useful and communicable information. But which types of visualizations are best suited to represent scientific findings in a clear and comprehensible way? This is where visual science communication research starts. To communicate the latest scientific findings to the public, we have developed a new format that combines the traditional scientific poster with a new and innovative approach: the next-generation interactive scientific poster. New technical possibilities offered by interactive media help to transform scientific findings in an intuitive way that allows, due to interaction, to adjust the level of detail and information that is presented to various audiences (see Figure 1). We explain how we have conceptualized, developed and designed the interactive scientific poster »Explore the Ocean« with an interdisciplinary team of scientists and information designers to create a platform to bring ocean observations and findings to a broad public to improve ocean literacy in society. Additionally, the interactive poster also provides an opportunity for scientists to communicate their often complex results to stakeholders. One of the biggest challenges for visual science communication is to develop effective visualizations that are attractive and emotional, yet scientifically accurate and substantial. For the production of these new visualizations, an interdisciplinary team is key to providing state-of-the-art design and programming skills but also to ensuring scientific accuracy. In this perspective article, we describe the advantages of interactive media in the visual communication of marine sciences. Furthermore, the suitability of interactive media to raise ocean literacy and societal connections to the ocean is discussed. We conclude that the collaboration between scientists and design experts has significant advantages and enables the transformation of scientific findings through advanced visualization techniques into a consistent language and effective communication media for specific audiences.
... It is imperative that university scientists are aware of and understand that engagement is steeped in power and does not operate in a vacuum (Bevan, Calabrese Barton, and Garibay 2020;Finlay et al. 2021;Polk and Diver 2020). Scientists also need support in setting goals and evaluating their engagement activities (Rowe et al. 2005;Stylinski et al. 2018;Whitehouse et al. 2014), and that support needs to be sustained and ongoing, much like teacher professional development models suggest (Desimone and Garet 2015;Garet et al. 2001). Attention to the development of an impact identity that includes the societal implications of a scientist's work could also improve engagement outcomes (Risien and Storksdieck 2018). ...
Public engagement with science is emerging in research and practice, but most research focuses on perspectives of and/or outcomes for public communities, not scientists. However, multi-way communication and mutual learning among community members and scientists are key features defining public engagement of science. In this perspectives article, focused on three studies of scientists' experiences, we identified areas needing improvement to achieve meaningful community engagement. In the first study, university researchers' self-reflections show mismatches in power dynamics with their participants, potentially limiting the mutuality of the exchange. In a second study, we found even herpetologists with extensive engagement experience rarely considered evaluating their activities. Finally, scientists who have gone through professional development in communication and/ or education may still have mismatches between their professed understanding of true engagement and their actions during engagement. We conclude with recommendations for scientist professional development to move toward truly inclusive (in all senses) science engagement.
... In her book Saving Us, Katherine Hayhoe (2021) offers thoughtful and practical strategies on how to listen to understand, bond, and connect. Scientists who receive training in public engagement practices such as these become more deeply committed to the role, feel more effective in the role, and feel their university teaching and careers benefit as well (Stylinski et al. 2018). While scientists and science institutions are trusted, it's important to recognize-and act on the fact-that we are not the only trusted voices in any community or nation. ...
A science-based understanding of climate change and potential mitigation and adaptation options can provide decision makers with important guidance in making decisions about how best to respond to the many challenges inherent in climate change. In this review we provide an evidence-based heuristic for guiding efforts to share science-based information about climate change with decision makers and the public at large. Well-informed decision makers are likely to make better decisions, but for a range of reasons, their inclinations to act on their decisions are not always realized into effective actions. We therefore also provide a second evidence-based heuristic for helping people and organizations change their climate change–relevant behaviors, should they decide to. These two guiding heuristics can help scientists and others harness the power of communication and behavior science in service of enhancing society's response to climate change. ▪ Many Earth scientists seeking to contribute to the climate science translation process feel frustrated by the inadequacy of the societal response. ▪ Here we summarize the social science literature by offering two guiding principles to guide communication and behavior change efforts. ▪ To improve public understanding, we recommend simple, clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted and caring messengers. ▪ To encourage uptake of useful behaviors, we recommend making the behaviors easy, fun, and popular.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Volume 51 is May 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... The significant relationships involving PBC bear important implications for organizers of public engagement training in light of past findings that suggested that training was associated with the perceived ability to conduct public engagement and the willingness to do so [85,86]. Building on the arguments on the viability of providing training programs in public engagement to raise PBC, the significant moderations suggested that the content of the training programs can be tailored to scientists who hold less favorable attitude toward, who perceived weaker social norms of, or who possess weaker personal norms for public engagement. ...
Scientists play important roles in conducting public engagement, but evidence shows that scientists perceive great challenges in doing so. Drawing broadly from the theory of planned behavior (TPB), this study examines factors predicting scientists’ willingness to conduct public engagement. This study further examines how perceived behavioral control (PBC) of conducting public engagement would moderate the relationships between the proposed predictors and scientists’ willingness to conduct public engagement. Using survey data collected from 706 scientists based in Singapore, this study found that attitude toward and personal norms of conducting public engagement, as well as PBC, significantly predicted scientists’ willingness to conduct public engagement. Notably, PBC interacted with attitude toward conducting public engagement, the perceived descriptive norms, the perceived positive media influence, and the perceived negative external norms of conducting public engagement, as well as personal norms of conducting public engagement to predict scientists’ willingness to conduct public engagement. We postulated the key role that the perception of the ease or difficulty plays in motivating scientists to conduct the skill-intensive endeavor explains the significant moderating effects. The theoretical implications on the TPB and the practical implications for public engagement are further discussed.
... The effect of training on scientists' willingness to engage is only recently being examined empirically. [20][21][22][23] Previous studies found a positive relationship between training and public engagement participation, 24,25 while other research failed to find such relationship between training and participation in engagement activities. 26 Likewise, other studies found mixed results in testing whether scientists who received communication training are actually perceived as more effective communicators compared to those that did not receive training. ...
This chapter provides an overview of strategic communication concepts and frameworks that support scientists' communication and engagement efforts, while this chapter provides a synthesis of the research in these different areas of science communication and how the life sciences and medical science can leverage particularly insights, communicating science in an age of politicization requires a reflection not just at what drives differences in how the public thinks about the sciences and scientists, but also insights into our shared thoughts and feelings about science. To that end, the chapter concludes with a broader examination of the connection between science and society through an overview of new and innovative research on how both scientists and the public think and feel about science and the sciences more specifically. Connecting these different frameworks and concepts provides important directions for the life science community to consider in their specific communication and engagement efforts, and those of the scientific community more broadly.
... To achieve these goals, countries need to substantially increase the number of trained teachers and include the concept of biological invasions or its discipline in education, whether in formal or informal contexts. For this, it is expected that researchers and educators develop, implement and evaluate novel and user-friendly resources and tools 3,19 . ...
Environmental education seeks to foster an appreciation for nature and the impact of humans on it while introducing citizens to scientific thinking. Biological invasions affect different aspects of life on earth and mandate urgent management actions. Education and public awareness are strongly recommended for successful prevention and management of invasive alien species (IAS). This work presents a study on knowledge and perception of the educational community of Argentina about native species and IAS. We designed an on-line semi-structured questionnaire to examine perception of the environment, recognition of native species and IAS and awareness about biological invasions. Educators recognised an important number of biotic components, mostly represented by trees, birds and mammals. Recognition of native species and IAS, and awareness of biological invasions were different between NST (Natural Science Teachers) and non-NST. Respondents had different performances when they were exposed to recognising native species though written names or photographs. Out of 532 respondents, 56% knew what biological invasions are, 21% answered “Maybe” and 23% had never heard about them. We need to foster capacity-building and encourage a two-way communication between educators and scientists, formally and informally, to engage the participation of the whole society in recognition, prevention and management of IAS.
... Besides, it has been shown that some scientists are fearful of using social media due to a lack of knowledge about the usage of social media, privacy, and other considerations, which leads to knowledge barriers at the level of ability to use social media [21]. "Lack of time" is another important influencing factor, time wastage has been identified as an important barrier to scientists' outreach [22], in the field of science communication, the use of social media is considered a waste of time by some researchers [23,24], as well as the lack of general clarity on the benefits of participating in social media, and the fact that social media themselves are at odds with scientific rigor make social media unattractive to scientists [25]. ...
Social media has become an important way for science communication. Some scholars have examined how to help scientists engage with social media from operational training, policy guidance, and social media services improving. The main contribution of this study is to construct a symbiosis evolution model of science communication ecosystem (SCE) between scientists and social media platforms based on the symbiosis theory and the Lotka–Volterra model to discuss the evolution of their symbiotic patterns and population size under different symbiosis coefficients. The results indicate that (1) the size of the symbiosis coefficients determines the equilibrium outcome of the symbiosis evolution of scientists and social media platforms; (2) scientists and social media platforms can promote each other’s population size under the mutualism pattern, which can achieve sustainable science communication; (3) “1 + 1 > 2” effect can only be achieved under the symmetric mutualism pattern and the growth of scientists and social media platforms is more stable and sufficient than that of other patterns. The findings will provide additional perspectives for promoting the sustainable development of science communication based on social media.
... So, they pointed out that achieving the goal would require cultural changes in science to value communication skills (Trench and Miller 2012) as well as changes in funding schemes and institutional structures. Relating these challenges, it also should be noted that issues about assessing the outcomes and impacts of the implementation of science communication training into GE remained unresolved Lewenstein 2016, 2017;Neeley et al. 2017;Neresini and Bucchi 2011;Stylinski et al. 2018). ...
Japan, like other countries, recognizes the need to shift the focus of the public communication of science and technology from science literacy via one-way communication to the public engagement of science and technology via dialogue. During the shift of perspectives, Japanese science policy tried to encourage science communication (SC) by cultivating the professional science communicator and communication capacity of scientists. This study aims to analyze the structural issues of developing science communication, particularly focusing on the gap between science policy and graduate education (GE) policy concerning the human resource development of scientists. The analyses found a lack of science communication development in graduate education policies, despite the emphasis on this in government science and technology (ST) policies. Simultaneously, it showed that there are few training courses for science communication and job recruiting for academic institutions. Discussions for systematic implementation of SC training in the GE system are expected to bridge higher education and ST policies.
... According to Stylinski et al. (2018), the research findings suggest that a comprehensive engagement training model, which incorporates learning theory, helps scientists build their own outreach strategies, provides opportunities to practice, and offers easy access to audiences, can have a sustained impact on disposition, perceived skills, and type of outreach conducted by scientists interested in deeper engagement with the public. ...
Astronomers have played many roles in their engagement with the larger astronomy education ecosystem. Their activities have served both the formal and informal education communities worldwide, with levels of involvement from the occasional participant to the full-time professional. We discuss these many diverse roles, giving background, context, and perspective on their value in encouraging and improving astronomy education. This review covers the large amounts of new research on best practices for diverse learning environments. For the formal education learning environment, we cover pre-university roles and engagement activities. This evidence-based perspective can support astronomers in contributing to the broad astronomy education ecosystem in more productive and efficient ways and in identifying new niches and approaches for developing the science capital necessary for a science literate society and for greater involvement of underrepresented groups in the science enterprise.
... Participants mentioned developing skills that supported their departmental work, for example around presentation and communication skills, as well as project management and creativity. Transferable communication skills, with applications to teaching and interactions with funders, have been evidenced as among key benefits of other training and schools engagement programmes (Cerrato et al., 2018;Stylinski et al., 2018): ...
A number of ‘gaps’ may be present within public engagement with research – disparity of skills, priorities and knowledge between research staff and engagement practitioners, as well as differences between institutional ambition and departmental reality. Such gaps are often perceived as problems – deficits to be addressed through training and culture change initiatives. The design and delivery of Imperial College London’s Engagement Academy with 12 members of research, teaching and professional services staff sought to explore and work across such gaps. We propose that these areas of disconnect within and across universities may be challenging, but they may also be structurally necessary, and potentially even a source of rich public engagement.
... Some recent studies have hypothesized and, in some cases, demonstrated a direct link between training and behavior (or behavioral intention/willingness). For example, scientists who participated in one popular outreach training program reported that they conduct public engagement activities at a higher frequency now than before they were in the program (Stylinski et al., 2018). Another study found that training was associated with an increase in science communication event participation (Silva & Bultitude, 2009), while a different study found that training predicted scientists' willingness to engage (Canete Benitez, 2014). ...
This article investigates the impact science communication training has on engagement intentions through a parallel multiple mediation model. Theory of planned behavior variables for internal efficacy, response efficacy, norms, and attitudes are examined as potential mediators. Based on a survey of randomly selected scientists from universities in the Association of American Universities, results indicate indirect effects for internal efficacy and attitudes toward the audience and consistent direct effects found in earlier research. This research provides a more comprehensive examination of how communication training contributes to scientists’ public engagement activity.
... Public Engagement is communicative action or establishing dialogue between science and the public (Bauer & Jensen, 2011;Davies, McCallie, Simonsson, Lehr, & Duensing, 2009;McCallie et al., 2009). Public engagement includes a variety of activities where citizens play an active role in decision-making , including public debates, consensus conferences, or "cafe scientifiques" (Bauer & Jensen, 2011, p. 4); maker fairs and science festivals; and participation in scientific research activities (Kollmann, Reich, Bell, & Goss, 2013;McCallie et al., 2009;Stylinski, Storksdieck, Canzoneri, Klein, & Johnson, 2018) with the aim of mutual learning (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2016; Todd, Haupt, Kollmann, & Pfeifle, 2018). ...
University researchers are asked to make their work relevant and accessible to people beyond their research fields, increasingly by undertaking public engagement with science themselves. However, academic outreach often only reaches an already-science-attentive audience through traditional museum visits or lecture-style presentations. Even programs designed to take advantage of public spaces may still pose barriers to non-traditional audiences, particularly in terms of time and money to attend. We designed a program to promote public engagement with science through casual conversations with pairs of scientists meeting public patrons in everyday and leisure spaces such as bars, coffeehouses, libraries, and laundromats, in both urban and rural locations. We conducted unobtrusive observations of these events at two time points as a case study and used thematic analysis to characterize the patterns of utterances, content of utterances, body positions, and object interactions with 29 groups. We found instances of high, medium, and low engagement, and describe characteristics of each type. We present example cases and suggest their use during professional development with scientists for public engagement and reflective practice. Overall, these conversations show promise for high public engagement with science and opportunities for true mutual learning between scientists and non-traditional public audiences.
Scientists are increasingly asked to publicly engage with wider audiences, but such actions require specific training. However, the perceived training needs of researchers have not been widely studied, and the impact of disciplinary cultures has not been assessed. Enhanced knowledge on how different disciplinary communities view training could assist in better tailoring training programmes. With the purpose of analysing training needs reported by scientists, a survey was administered to researchers from three scientific disciplines in Portugal, and the results confirm an association between scientific disciplines and training needs. Previous science communication practice is also related to perceived needs, and training is associated with enhanced self-efficacy.
https://transferunit.de/thema/wie-koennen-wissenschaftlerinnen-zu-wissenschaftskommunikation-motiviert-und-befaehigt-werden/
Hendriks, F., Banse, L., & Fick, J. (2023). Wie können Wissenschaftler*innen dazu motiviert und befähigt werden, im Bereich Wissenschaftskommunikation aktiv zu werden? — Ein Forschungsüberblick. Berlin: Transfer Unit Wissenschaftskommunikation.
Wissenschaftskommunikation (Wisskomm) von Forschenden wird zunehmende Bedeutung zugesprochen. Wissenschaftler*innen wurden etwa im Grundsatzpapier des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) als zentrale Akteure der Wisskomm benannt (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), 2019). Zur Erhöhung der Aktivität und Befähigung von Forschenden in der Wisskomm wurden in den letzten Jahren zahlreiche Inzentive (z. B. Preise) ins Leben gerufen, auch werden zahlreiche Weiterbildungen angeboten. Doch wie wirken diese, und welche Erfolge lassen sich erwarten? Das Ziel dieses Forschungsüberblicks ist zusammenzufassen, was Wissenschaftler*innen hindert (Abschnitt 2) oder aber motiviert (Abschnitt 3) zu kommunizieren, welche Kompetenzen (Abschnitt 4) sie dazu benötigen, und wie Weiterbildungen zur Wisskomm gestaltet sein sollten (Abschnitt 5). Dazu fassen wir aktuelle Forschung zusammen, insbesondere quantitative und qualitative Befragungen von Wissenschaftler*innen, sowie zu Entwicklung und Evaluation von Trainings zur Wisskomm. Abschließend (Abschnitt 6) sprechen wir Empfehlungen aus, wie die Motivation und Befähigung von Wissenschaftler*innen zur Wisskomm so gefördert werden können, dass diese in der Lage sind, effektiv, angemessen und qualitätsvoll zu kommunizieren.
Engaging with audiences and communities beyond academia is now a common practice for political scientists. Yet, political scientists rarely are trained in how to conduct public or policy engagement, and we know little about the impact that training programs have on their preparedness to communicate with the public and policy makers. In this study, we evaluate whether professional training equips scholars with the skills needed to perform public and policy outreach. We find that a four-day training program generates remarkably large increases in the number of participants reporting that they possess high levels of knowledge, preparation, and confidence for public and policy engagement. This finding suggests that investments in public-engagement training by universities and the discipline of political science have the potential to significantly boost public outreach by faculty members.
We present a conceptual framework rooted in the practices and experiences of nine collaborative partnerships between universities and informal science education organizations. Our analysis and resulting framework aim to support those brokering, designing, and evaluating partnerships in making sense of the dynamism of interorganizational efforts to collaborate in achieving broader impacts of research. We highlight the critical role of brokers in modulating attentions between interorganizational, intraorganizational, and networked dimensions of their collaborations to maintain partnership health and continue progress toward shared goals.
A profound transformation, in recent decades, is promoting shifts in the ways ecological science is produced and shared; as such, ecologists are increasingly encouraged to engage in dialogues with multiple stakeholders and in transdisciplinary research. Among the different forms of public engagement, citizen science (CS) has significant potential to support science-society interactions with mutual benefits. While many studies have focused on the experience and motivations of CS volunteers, scarce literature investigating the perspectives of researchers is available. The main purpose of this paper is to better understand scientists’ attitudes about CS in the context of its potential to support outcomes that extent beyond more traditional ones focused on promoting science knowledge and interest. We surveyed the scientific community belonging to the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network because ILTER is of interest to multiple stakeholders and occurs over long time scales. Via an online questionnaire, we asked ILTER scientists about their willingness to participate in different types of public engagement, their reasons for participating in CS, the associated barriers, and any impacts of these efforts on them. Our findings show that many ILTER scientists are open to participating in CS for a wide range of reasons; the dominant ones involve deeper public engagement and collaboration. The barriers of greatest concern of these respondents were the lack of institutional support to start and run a CS project and the difficulty of establishing long-term stable relationships with the public. They reported impacts of CS activities on how they pursue their work and acknowledged the benefit of opportunities to learn from the public. The emerging picture from this research is of a community willing and actively involved in many CS projects for both traditional reasons, such as data gathering and public education, and expanded reasons that activate a real two-way cooperation with the public. In the ILTER community, CS may thus become an opportunity to promote and develop partnerships with citizens, helping to advance the science-society interface and to rediscover and enhance the human and social dimension of the scientific work.
We investigated how to improve PSC at a large, public university with high research activity by examining scientists’ interest and enjoyment in PSC, their perceived aptitude of PSC skills, the channels they use for PSC, their reasons for choosing to participate in PSC, and the tools they need to engage effectively. We conducted a case study and collected data from scientists across five colleges (n = 266). Results suggest that scientists who do not engage in PSC need external support from their institution, and scientists who do engage in PSC continue to engage because they feel intrinsically motivated. Results revealed that communication skills development training is needed to improve scientists’ perceived ability to mitigate science controversies, evaluate the effectiveness of communication strategies, and manage science communications projects. We also found that scientists who used social media for PSC enjoy and contribute to PSC more than those who did not use social media. However, PSC contribution varied based on scientists’ ethnicity, years of research experience, faculty title, and college. Female scientists need more help than males do in developing their confidence and increasing their enjoyment in PSC. These results can help provide insight into the PSC environment at universities of similar stature.
Our qualitative interviews with 16 early-career South African researchers investigated how they view public engagement and its role in their research careers, as well as the motivations, challenges and institutional factors that shape their engagement efforts. We situate our findings in the context of high societal diversity and inequality in South Africa. We found that young researchers see public engagement predominantly as a tool to educate the public, with limited awareness of dialogic and participative approaches. While the researchers saw benefit in participating in public engagement, they disagreed on whether public engagement is an integral part of a scientist’s professional role. Personal enjoyment was a key motivator for engagement, but they also wanted to make a difference in their communities by helping to address knowledge gaps. Time constraints, competing work demands and a perceived lack of skills were barriers, as well as a shortage of institutional support and engagement opportunities. The young researchers were eager to have access to engagement training and felt that public engagement deserves more recognition in their work environments. Based on this, we proposed recommendations for institutions that may help to create a supportive environment for early-career scientists who wish to participate in public engagement.
Since many of the problems societies face today are complex and, by origin, are scientific (e.g., climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.), scientific evidence is imperative in many policymaking processes to get a deeper understanding of these issues and possible risks and to derive and justify certain policy measures. The close intertwining of science and politics, however, can have both positive (e.g., growing recognition or reputation, fact-based decision making) and negative consequences (e.g., growing science skepticism, expertocracy, and misuse of scientific credibility to pursue political agendas) for science. The first aim of our paper is to sharpen the theoretical conceptualization of the phenomenon of politicization, and the second aim is to disentangle different drivers (politics and political actors, media and journalists, science and scientists) that may fuel a politicization of science. Based on this, possible effects of politicization for individual scientists and for science as a whole and, thus, for the practice of science are discussed.
Science centers and museums have been heavily invested in helping scientists engage in reaching broader publics. Starting with understanding the types of learning that happen in these institutions, the chapter explores the roles of science centers in society as defined by the Association of Science and Technology Centers. The authors explore how those roles play out in COSI, a large science center in Columbus, Ohio. Each of the roles identified is tied to programs related to the interface among school-aged youth, teachers (formal and informal educators), and scientists. The authors explore these roles by describing each program and then laying out the theoretical foundations and the desired outcomes of the engagement.
A major barrier to achieving wide-spread progress on planning for impacts from climate change is the lack of trained scientists skilled at conducting societally-relevant research. Overcoming this barrier requires us to transform the way we train scientists so they are equipped to work with a range of different societal partners and institutions to produce the science needed to address climate change and society’s other pressing environmental challenges. As researchers at climate research organizations that work directly with decision-makers and stakeholders to produce decision-relevant science, we are entrenched in advancing actionable climate science. Based on our experience preparing scientists for similar careers, we offer a perspective on a path for the academy to better develop, train and support scientists to conduct societally relevant research. We emphasize the need for science training that builds collaborative science skills at different career stages to develop a strong community of practice around actionable climate science. We offer insights from our training and capacity-building programs to demonstrate this transformation, and point to strategies that can be adopted at other universities to grow the capacity of scientists to support society in achieving rapid progress on climate action.
To communicate by visual means lies in the nature of humankind. Today, in the natural sciences, visualizations transfer data into useful and communicable information. But which types of visualizations are best suited to represent scientific findings in a clear and comprehensible way? This is where visual science communication research starts. To communicate latest scientific findings to the public, we have developed a new format that combines the traditional scientific poster with a new and innovative approach: the next generation interactive scientific poster. New technical possibilities offered by interactive media help to transform scientific findings in an intuitive way that allows, due to interaction, to adjust the level of detail and information that is presented to various audiences (see figure1). We explain how we have conceptualized, developed and designed the interactive scientific poster »Explore the Ocean« in an interdisciplinary team of scientists and information designers to create a platform to bring ocean observations and findings to a broad public to improve ocean literacy in society. Additionally, the interactive poster also provides an opportunity for scientists to communicate their often complex results to stakeholders. One of the biggest challenges for visual science communication is to develop effective visualizations that are attractive and emotional, yet scientifically accurate and substantial. For the production of this new visualizations an interdisciplinary team is key, to provide state-of-the-art design and programming skills but also to ensure scientific accuracy. In this article, we describe the advantages of interactive media in the visual communication of marine sciences. Furthermore, the suitability of interactive media to raise ocean literacy and societal connections to the ocean is discussed.
We conclude that the collaboration between scientists and design experts has significant advantages and enables the transformation of scientific findings through advanced visualization techniques into a consistent language and effective communication media for specific audiences.
Astronomers have played many roles in their engagement with the larger astronomy education ecosystem. Their activities have served both the formal and informal education communities worldwide, with levels of involvement from the occasional participant to the full-time professional. We discuss these many diverse roles, giving background, context, and perspective on their value in encouraging and improving astronomy education. This review covers the large amounts of new research on best practices for diverse learning environments. This evidence-based perspective can support astronomers in contributing to the broad astronomy education ecosystem in more productive and efficient ways and in identifying new niches and approaches for developing the science capital necessary for a science literate society and for greater involvement of underrepresented groups in the science enterprise. Current research emphasizes the importance of ▪ The formation of science ideas in children and the development of their science identity ▪ The design of professional development programs for educators ▪ Museums and other informal learning institutions and settings ▪ The use of astronomical data and immersion experiences ▪ Shifting the astronomy education paradigm using new approaches with diverse audiences
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Astronomy, Volume 58 is August 18, 2020. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
This paper develops a fourth model of public engagement with science, grounded in the principle of nurturing scientific agency through participatory bioethics. It argues that social media is an effective device through which to enable such engagement, as it has the capacity to empower users and transforms audiences into co-producers of knowledge, rather than consumers of content. Social media also fosters greater engagement with the political and legal implications of science, thus promoting the value of scientific citizenship. This argument is explored by considering the case of nanoscience and nanotechnology, as an exemplar for how emerging technologies may be handled by the scientific community and science policymakers.
The current study explores the degree to which two-way communication is applied in science communication contexts in North America, based on the experiences of science communication trainers. Interviews with 24 science communication trainers suggest that scientists rarely focus on applying two-way communication tactics, such as listening to their audiences or tailoring messages based on their audiences’ needs. Also, although trainers generally recognize the value of two-way communication, it is seldom addressed in science communication trainings. The importance of two-way communication in fostering interactive dialogical communication between scientists and the public, and thus the importance of emphasizing it more during science communication training, is discussed.
Arguably, the dissemination of science communication has recently entered a new age in which science must compete for public attention with fake news, alternate facts, and pseudoscience. This clash is particularly evident on social media. Facebook has taken a prime role in disseminating fake news, alternate facts, and pseudoscience, but is often ignored in the context of science outreach, especially among individual scientists. Based on new survey data, scientists appear in large Facebook networks but seldom post information about general science, their own scientific research, or culturally controversial topics in science. The typical individual scientist’s audience is large and personally connected, potentially leading to both a broad and deep engagement in science. Moreover, this media values individual expertise, allowing scientists to serve as a “Nerd of Trust” for their online friend and family networks. Science outreach via social media demands a renewed interest, and Facebook may be an overlooked high-return, low-risk science outreach tool in which scientists can play a valuable role to combat disinformation.
Rapid growth in public communication of science and technology has led to many diverse training programs. We ask: What are learning goals of science communication training? A comprehensive set of learning goals for future trainings will draw fully from the range of fields that contribute to science communication. Learning goals help decide what to count as success and how to gather evidence of learning. Based on the strands of learning developed for 'learning science in informal environments', we built a conceptually coherent definition of science communication learning that addresses affective issues, content knowledge, methods, reflection, participation, and identity. We reviewed dozens of articles describing science communication training, identifying explicit and implicit learning goals. We identified gaps in outcomes commonly used for training programs; these gaps appeared especially in the areas of affective learning and identity formation. No one program can achieve all learning goals. Different courses might be tailored for scientists who remain in science, wish to become journalists, wish to work for museums, etc. But we believe conceptual coherence can help course designers identify important goals. Creating a common language will increase the ability to compare outcomes across courses and programs.
It is often assumed that issue advocacy will compromise the credibility of scientists. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to test public reactions to six different advocacy statements made by a scientist—ranging from a purely informational statement to an endorsement of specific policies. We found that perceived credibility of the communicating scientist was uniformly high in five of the six message conditions, suffering only when he advocated for a specific policy—building more nuclear power plants (although credibility did not suffer when advocating for a different specific policy—carbon dioxide limits at power plants). We also found no significant differences in trust in the broader climate science community between the six message conditions. Our results suggest that climate scientists who wish to engage in certain forms of advocacy have considerable latitude to do so without risking harm to their credibility, or the credibility of the scientific community.
Please note: the postprint for this article is available for download at bit.ly/VYMartin, or you can request the paper directly through ResearchGate. The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Science Communication, 39(2), April 2017 published by SAGE Publishing, All rights reserved. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547017696165
ABSTRACT:
Citizen science is often assumed to increase public science engagement, however little is known about who is likely to volunteer and the implications for greater societal impact. This study segments 1145 potential volunteers into six groups according to their current engagement in science (EiS). Results show groups with high levels of EiS are significantly more interested in volunteering and more likely to participate in various research roles than those with lower EiS scores. While citizen science benefits some in science and society, its use as a strategy to bring about positive shifts in public science engagement needs to be reconsidered.
Undergraduate education incorporating active learning and vicarious experience through education outreach presents a critical opportunity to influence future engineering teaching and practice capabilities. Engineering education outreach activities have been shown to have multiple benefits; increasing interest and engagement with science and engineering for school children, providing teachers with expert contributions to engineering subject knowledge, and developing professional generic skills for engineers such as communication and teamwork. This pilot intervention paired 10 pre-service teachers and 11 student engineers to enact engineering outreach in primary schools, reaching 269 children. A longitudinal mixed methods design was employed to measure change in attitudes and Education Outreach Self-Efficacy in student engineers; alongside attitudes, Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy and Engineering Subject Knowledge Confidence in pre-service teachers. Highly significant improvements were noted in the pre-service teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy, while both the teachers and engineers qualitatively described benefits arising from the paired peer mentor model.
Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists' report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public's trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.
Notwithstanding that ‘public engagement’ is conceptualised differently internationally and in different academic disciplines, higher education institutions largely accept the importance of public engagement with research. However, there is limited evidence on how researchers conceptualise engagement, their views on what constitutes engagement and the communities they would (or would not) like to engage with. This paper presents the results of a survey of researchers in the Open University that sought to gather data to fill these gaps. This research was part of an action research project designed to embed engagement in the routine practices of researchers at all levels. The findings indicate that researchers have a relatively narrow view of public engagement with research and the communities with which they interact. It also identified that very few strategically evaluate their public engagement activities. We conclude by discussing some of the interventions we have introduced with the aim of broadening and deepening future researcher engagement.
Scientists are increasingly expected to engage in public communication, though they frequently report that they feel inadequately prepared for such activity. The necessary training for such activity has barely been discussed in the science communication literature. Drawing on country reports from the Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS) report, this paper reviews initiatives across Europe to support scientists' public communication. It examines these within a framework that distinguishes between training oriented to dissemination or dialogue, and to capacity-building of scientists or professionalisation of science communicators. It traces the uneven spread and diverse character of such supports and identifies the four principal groups of policy actors who play distinct roles and, in the case of higher education institutions, sometimes internally contradictory roles. The paper draws on the authors' own experiences to underline the value of communication training that is oriented to dialogue and stimulates reflexivity.
Students have been reported to have stereotypical views of scientists as middle-aged white men in lab coats. We argue that a way to provide students with a more realistic view of scientists and their work is to provide them with the opportunity to interact with scientists during short, discussion-based sessions. For that reason, 20 scientists from 8 professional areas were asked to share their experiences of becoming and being a scientist, in short sessions with groups of 7–8 students. The student sample consisted of 223 students between 13 and 15 years. Student and scientist questionnaires were used before and after the sessions to assess students’ views of scientists and their work, and scientists’ experiences of interacting with students. The pre-session questionnaires revealed that students considered scientists as ‘boring’ and ‘nerdy’ whereas after the sessions students focused extensively on how ‘normal’ the scientists appeared to be. The face-to-face interactions with scientists allowed students to view scientists as approachable and normal people, and to begin to understand the range of scientific areas and careers that exist. Scientists viewed the scientist–student interactions as a vehicle for science communication. Implications discussed include the need for future training courses to focus on developing science communicators’ questioning and interaction skills for effective interactions with students.
This report presents the findings of a two-day invitational workshop held at MIT on September 23 – 24, 2013 as part of the Evolving Culture of Science Engagement Initiative, an ongoing collaboration between
a new nonprofit organization, Culture Kettle, and several MIT departments led by the Program in Science,
Technology & Society and the MIT Museum. The initiative explores a new wave of public science engagement activity that appears to be dissolving the once-bright line between science and popular culture. Its goals are to:
Generate greater understanding of how science engagement is changing in contemporary
society;
Analyze and compare the operating assumptions, strategies, and sensibilities of some of the most innovative science engagement programs across settings and media;
On the basis of that new understanding and analysis, explore what the science engagement field can do to extend and diversify the public connection with science;
Identify gaps in our knowledge about the landscape of public science experiences and develop a research and experimentation agenda aimed at generating useful insights and advancing science engagement in contemporary
culture;
Create a new, multidisciplinary network of science engagement practitioners and researchers from professional communities that do not usually collaborate;
Inform the work of specific science engagement and research initiatives underway in the US and elsewhere.
The late founder of this journal, Stephen Schneider, argued that climate scientists must find the right balance between being honest about the limits of our knowledge and being effective in communicating the risks that climate change poses to society. The worlds of science and communications have changed dramatically in the years since Schneider first described this “double ethical bind”. Yet for most scientists, the core challenge of public communication remains. How do we choose between what we perceive as science – being honest – and what we perceive as advocacy – being effective? This essay suggests that scientists should view science and advocacy as opposite ends of a continuum with many possible positions. Drawing upon findings from psychology, communications, and science and technology studies, I describe how scientists can use research and critical self-analysis to be “scientific” about public engagement and to choose a suitable place for themselves on the science-advocacy continuum.
The American Astronomical Society, with organizations active in EPO, has launched professional-development workshops and a community of practice to help improve early-career astronomers' ability to communicate effectively. Called "Astron-omy Ambassadors," the program provides mentoring and training for participants, from advanced undergraduates to beginning faculty. By learning to implement effective EPO strategies, Ambassadors become better teachers, meeting presenters, and representa-tives of our science to the public and government. Because young astronomers are a more diverse group than those who now do most outreach, they help the astronomy community present a more multicultural and gender-balanced face to the public, en-abling underserved groups to see themselves as scientists. Ambassadors are given a library of outreach activities and materials, including many developed by cooperating organizations such as the ASP, plus some that have been created by Andrew Fraknoi specifically for this program.
Science museums play a role in creating visitor experiences that relate to contemporary issues in science, and in linking audiences to the scientific enterprise and the community of scientists. In the Portal to the Public approach, science researchers are trained by museum educators with experience in inquiry-based learning, and are then given opportunities to translate their current research for museum audiences. Portal to the Public offers one solution to museums seeking to sustain a commitment to delivering experiences that reflect the dynamic pace of research, and the need to connect local communities to scientific research occurring in their midst.
Public engagement (PE) activities have become a regular feature for several research institutions in Europe. However, while research and teaching functions can count on established indicators, PE functions are often performed as a sort of “goodwill exercise.” Few studies have focused on defining appropriate indicators and standards, particularly at the organizational level. An exploratory study was carried out on a sample of 40 European research institutions with a view to understanding whether the diffusion of PE activities has led to incorporating the PE perspective into “routine” activities of organizations. The results point to quite unequal performances among European research institutions. Also, while most research institutions examined have dedicated resources for PE activities, the study suggests that such activities are not yet considered essential. Performance indicators and standards might prove of great support for institutions and policy actors that wish to take seriously the challenge of public engagement and societal dialogue.
The exchange of information between researchers, resource managers, decision makers, and the general public has long been recognized as a critical need in environmental science. We examine the challenges in using ecological knowledge to inform society and to change societal actions, and identify a set of options and strategies to enhance this exchange. Our objectives are to provide background information on societal knowledge and interest in science and environmental issues, to describe how different components of society obtain information and develop their interests and values, and to present a framework for evaluating and improving communication between science and society. Our analysis strongly suggests that the interface between science and society can only be improved with renewed dedication to public outreach and a wholesale reconsideration of the way that scientists communicate with society. Ecologists need to adopt new models of engagement with their audiences, frame their results in ways that are more meaningful to these audiences, and use new communication tools, capable of reaching large and diverse target groups.
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.
The European Science Communication Network, between 2005 and 2008, created and delivered original communication training workshops to more than 170 researchers, primarily early-career scientists, to empower them to perform reflexive public engagement activities in various communication situations. The program designed 12 original teaching modules for science communication that not only delivered skills training, including writing for popular audiences and media interview skills, but also developed capacity in, among other areas, risk communication, communicating science in dialogue, and examining controversies within the scientific community. The workshops aimed to encourage scientists to reflect critically on the social, historical, cultural, and ethical dimensions of science.
Numerous theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain the gap between the possession of environmental knowledge and environmental awareness, and displaying pro-environmental behavior. Although many hundreds of studies have been undertaken, no definitive explanation has yet been found. Our article describes a few of the most influential and commonly used analytical frameworks: early US linear progression models; altruism, empathy and prosocial behavior models; and finally, sociological models. All of the models we discuss (and many of the ones we do not such as economic models, psychological models that look at behavior in general, social marketing models and that have become known as deliberative and inclusionary processes or procedures (DIPS)) have some validity in certain circumstances. This indicates that the question of what shapes pro-environmental behavior is such a complex one that it cannot be visualized through one single framework or diagram. We then analyze the factors that have been found to have some influence, positive or negative, on pro-environmental behavior such as demographic factors, external factors (e.g. institutional, economic, social and cultural) and internal factors (e.g. motivation, pro-environmental knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes, emotion, locus of control, responsibilities and priorities). Although we point out that developing a model that tries to incorporate all factors might neither be feasible nor useful, we feel that it can help illuminate this complex field. Accordingly, we propose our own model based on the work of Fliegenschnee and Schelakovsky (1998) who were influenced by Fietkau and Kessel (1981).
Scholars and pundits alike argue that U.S. scientists could do more to reach out to the general public. Yet, to date, there have been few systematic studies that examine how scientists understand the barriers that impede such outreach. Through analysis of 97 semi-structured interviews with academic biologists and physicists at top research universities in the United States, we classify the type and target audiences of scientists' outreach activities. Finally, we explore the narratives academic scientists have about outreach and its reception in the academy, in particular what they perceive as impediments to these activities. We find that scientists' outreach activities are stratified by gender and that university and disciplinary rewards as well as scientists' perceptions of their own skills have an impact on science outreach. Research contributions and recommendations for university policy follow.
There is a drive for more scientists to engage with the lay public. The authors used an augmented version of the theory of planned behavior and identified three factors that predicted scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement activities, over and above their past actions: attitude (whether participation was regarded as positive), perceived behavioral control (beliefs about whether participation was under their control), and descriptive norms (whether scientists believe their colleagues participate). Factors such as career recognition and time constraints did not significantly predict intentions. These findings will contribute to the design of interventions to promote public engagement.
The ‘deficit model’ of public attitudes towards science has led to controversy over the role of scientific knowledge in explaining lay people’s attitudes towards science. The most sustained critique has come from what we refer to as the ‘contextualist’ perspective. In this view, people’s understanding of the ways in which science is embedded within wider political, economic and regulatory settings is fundamental for explaining their attitudes towards science. Most work adopting this perspective has relied on qualitative case studies as empirical evidence. In this paper we challenge the de facto orthodoxy that has connected the deficit model and contextualist perspectives with quantitative and qualitative research methods respectively. We simultaneously test hypotheses from both theoretical approaches using quantitative methodology. We use data from the 1996 British Social Attitudes Survey to investigate the interacting effects of different domains of scientific and contextual knowledge on public attitudes toward science. The results point to the clear importance of knowledge as a determinant of attitudes toward science. However, in contrast to the rather simplistic deficit model that has traditionally characterised discussions of this relationship, this analysis highlights the complex and interacting nature of the knowledge-attitude interface.
This paper reviews key issues of public understanding of science (PUS) research over the last quarter of a century. We show how the discussion has moved in relation to large-scale surveys of public perceptions by tracing developments through three paradigms: science literacy, public understanding of science and science and society. Naming matters here like elsewhere as a marker of "tribal identity." Each paradigm frames the problem differently, poses characteristic questions, offers preferred solutions, and displays a rhetoric of "progress" over the previous one. We argue that the polemic over the "deficit concept" voiced a valid critique of a common sense concept among experts, but confused the issue with methodological protocol. PUS research has been hampered by this "essentialist" association between the survey research protocol and the public deficit model. We argue that this fallacious link should be severed to liberate and to expand the research agenda in four directions: contextualizing survey research, searching for cultural indicators, integrating datasets and doing longitudinal analysis, and including other data streams. Under different presumptions, assumed and granted, we anticipate a fertile period for survey research on public understanding of science.
This chapter presents communication perspectives on two reputable science institutions in the United States, each with historic and modern roles in shaping the enterprise of science, as well as practice in communicating science: the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The discussion includes an overview of how these institutions synthesize and communicate scientific knowledge and an examination of their efforts not only to convey scientific information to the broader public but also to serve as a respected voice for the scientific community. It reveals tensions that occur when institutions dedicated to the advancement of science interface with the complex world of public perception and public policy. The chapter concludes by advocating for better connecting the theory and practice of science communication and calls for encouraging increased interaction and collaboration between science communication researchers and practitioners.
Self-efficacy, or the beliefs people hold about their ability to succeed in certain pursuits, is a long-established construct. Self-efficacy for science communication distinguishes scientists who engage with the public and relates to scientists’ attitudes about the public. As such, self-efficacy for public engagement has the potential to serve as a key indicator in the evaluation of scientist training and public outreach programs. To date, most evaluation scales have been designed for public audiences, rather than scientists. This study used think-aloud methods and Item Response Theory to develop a scale to measure scientists’ Self-Efficacy for Public Engagement with Science. The results from this study support the use of a 13-item self-efficacy scale, and provide initial validation evidence to support its use with scientists who engage with the public. The findings are presented in relation to the continued study of public engagement through both research and evaluation.
The election as US President of Donald J Trump, who denies the scientific consensus on climate change, raises questions about the role of scientists in public discourse. How far should scientists wade into the waters of advocacy before risking their credibility of fair arbiters of knowledge? The new study by Kotcher, Myers, Vraga, Stenhouse, and Maibach [2017. Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication. doi:10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736] is a reminder that scientists are among the most trusted people in public life and have some freedom to engage publicly without harming their reputation. However, with the power to influence public debate comes the responsibility to carefully consider the impact of statements and actions. This commentary discusses the challenges facing scientists at a time of great potential for public engagement, and for a gap between perceived and actual intent of public statements.
The funders of UK research seek to embed public engagement by researchers within the culture of UK research. Within this context, this paper provides a snapshot of the UK public engagement landscape by reporting on new quantitative research that examines the experiences and perspectives
of UK researchers (n = 2,454) and public engagement support staff (n = 260). The research suggests that ambitions to embed public engagement by researchers within institutional cultures can be understood as a 'work in progress'. There are indications that public engagement is part of the UK
research landscape. At the same time, the research suggests that researchers' public engagement efforts are currently constrained; there is evidence of a disconnect between researchers themselves and broader institutional contexts of public engagement, and the sector is overwhelmingly driven
by funding and rewards for research, teaching and other activities. In conclusion, these results indicate that, while current strategies have been helpful, longer term effort is required, perhaps targeting particular domains and, more fundamentally, perhaps featuring greater support and reward
for public engagement.
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.
Despite mounting criticism, the deficit model remains an integral part of science communication research and practice. In this article, I advance three key factors that contribute to the idea of the public deficit in science communication, including the purpose of science communication, how communication processes and outcomes are conceptualized, and how science and scientific knowledge are defined. Affording science absolute epistemic privilege, I argue, is the most compelling factor contributing to the continued use of the deficit model. In addition, I contend that the deficit model plays a necessary, though not sufficient, role in science communication research and practice. Areas for future research are discussed.
When we began our careers, good science consisted of two basic activities: (i) doing first-rate research and (ii) publishing it in the technical literature for the benefit of scientific colleagues. We firmly believe that a third activity must now be added by all scientists: (iii) informing the
To secure research funding from grant-awarding agencies such as the US National Science Foundation, scientists - despite not typically being trained in non-technical communication or public engagement - must competitively formulate so-called Broader Impacts activities. Dissemination activities are often proposed as Broader Impacts of research, but what characteristics of these activities truly indicate their potential to be "broad" or "impactful"? How can the "impacts" of very different activities be fairly compared during peer review? Combining the experiences of successful practitioners with communication theory, I have synthesized a fivepoint framework that could help both proposers and reviewers craft and compare Broader Impacts dissemination activities. This "Broader Impacts Impact Framework" summarizes best practices in communication and outreach, and can be easily used by scientists during proposal writing and review. This framework focuses on five main factors: who, why, what, how, and with whom.
This study assesses how scientists think about science communication training based on the argument that such training represents an important tool in improving the quality of interactions between scientists and the public. It specifically focuses on training related to five goals, including views about training to make science messages understandable, as well as attitude-focused training meant to build trust and credibility, to demonstrate that one listens to the public, to demonstrate that one cares about the public's views, and to frame messages to resonate with audiences' pre-existing values. The theory of planned behavior and procedural justice theory were used to identify potential predictors of views about training toward these goals. Results show that the scientists rate message comprehension and credibility most favorably and give their lowest rating to training related to framing. Regression analyses reveal that believing that public engagement can make a difference (external efficacy) and belief in the ethicality of specific goals were the best predictors of whether scientists saw value in goal-oriented training. The results suggest that communication trainers might benefit from emphasizing the effectiveness and ethicality of engagement activities if they want to attract scientists to communication training, and that more work may need to be done by professional organizations to help scientists consider the value of thinking about communication goals beyond the traditional focus on message comprehension. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 52:199–220, 2015.
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their organizations. We emphasize the need for science communication initiatives that are guided by careful formative research; that span a diversity of media platforms and audiences; and that facilitate conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.
The current study involved an attempted census of first and second authors from five key journals across the subfields of science, health, environment, and risk communication between 2003 and 2008. Of those responding (n = 320), 80% describe themselves as a communication expert. Of these experts (n = 255), 57% report conducting formal training for bench scientists and engineers, science regulators, medical personnel, or journalists. The main focus of training was in basic communication theories and models. There is broad agreement that the science community would benefit from additional science communication training and that deficit model thinking remains prevalent.
This study is a cross-national empirical analysis of popular science publishing among university staff in a 13-country sample. The countries included in the study are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, the UK and the USA. The study seeks to quantify the extent of popular science publishing and its relationship with scientific publishing. Popular science publishing was measured as the number of articles written by scientists in newspapers and magazines over the three-year period 2005-07. Our findings suggest that popular science publishing is undertaken by a minority of academic staff and to a far lesser extent than scientific publishing. Despite the arguably fewer rewards associated with publishing for the non-specialist public, our data suggests that academic staff with popular publications have higher levels of scientific publishing and academic rank. The positive relationship between scientific and popular publishing is consistent across all countries and academic fields. The extent of popular science publishing varies with field and country.
Recent work has started to explore “scientific understandings of publics” alongside public understandings of science. This study builds on this work to examine the ways in which public communication is talked about by scientists and engineers. The author identifies a range of ways of talking about the purposes and content of science communication to the public, arguing that the dominant framework for these is one-way communication, and that, in addition, such communication tends to be constructed as difficult and dangerous. However, the author further identifies a range of minority discourses that understand public communication in more complex terms.
This article provides a conceptual history of science mass communication, which is seen as divided into the scientific literacy and interactive science traditions. The origins of the ideas that underlie the scientific literacy and interactive science traditions, as well as some of the issues researchers have raised, are introduced. The author argues the two traditions are not mutually exclusive, although the interactive tradition is a response to the applied problems within the scientific literacy model. It is argued that the pace of research might be accelerated if there were a more comprehensive collaboration among science communication, health communication, and risk communication scholarship.
One view of environmental education suggests that its goal is to ‘develop a world population that … has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations and commitment to work individually and collectively towards solutions of current problems and the prevention of new ones’ (UNESCO‐UNEP 1976). Embedded within this charge is the teaching of skills and motivations to implement skills, where a skill refers to performance of an act acquired through extended practice and training (Ericsson and Oliver 1995). However, it is often difficult to articulate clearly what skills we teach in conservation education and environmental education focusing on behavior change or influence. It can be equally challenging to describe the behaviors we are ultimately seeking, identified in the Tbilisi Declaration as ‘new patterns of behavior’ (UNESCO 1978). At a basic level, it is important to explore the grounding for teaching toward behavior – often referred to as behavior change – that supports the work of the field. This literature review attempts to provide a foundation for behavior‐related discussions in environmental and conservation education. A number of the behavior theories, concepts and models discussed in this review have been explored extensively elsewhere; therefore, this review is not exhaustive, but rather is intended to be broadly representative of the literature.
This research provides secondary data analysis of two large-scale scientist surveys. These include a 2009 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members and a 2006 survey of university scientists by the United Kingdom's Royal Society. Multivariate models are applied to better understand the motivations, beliefs, and conditions that promote scientists' involvement in communication with the public and the news media. In terms of demographics, scientists who have reached mid-career status are more likely than their peers to engage in outreach, though even after controlling for career stage, chemists are less likely than other scientists to do so. In terms of perceptions and motivations, a deficit model view that a lack of public knowledge is harmful, a personal commitment to the public good, and feelings of personal efficacy and professional obligation are among the strongest predictors of seeing outreach as important and in participating in engagement activities.
In the public understanding of science. rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a theory capable of analysing public understanding and an activity capable of creating it. In its analytical role, rhetoric reveals two dominant models of public undenvdnding: the deficit model and the contextual model. In the deficit model. rhetoric acts in the minor role of creating public undenldnding by accommodating the facts and methods of science to public needs and limitations. In the contextudl model, rhetoric and rhetorical analysis pldy major roles. Rhetorical analysis provides an independent source of evidence lo secure social scientific claims: in addition. if supplies the grounds for a rhetoric of reconstruction. one that reconstitutes the fact and facts of science in the public interest.
Many ecologists are interested in communicating science to the public and addressing societal concerns about environmental issues. Individual ecologists need to consider whether, when, and how this should be done. We propose that public outreach activities can be beneficial for ecologists at all stages of their career. There are diverse opportunities for such involvement, and these can vary enormously in terms of time and expertise required. Trends within the science of ecology, especially research focused on social—ecological systems, are likely to promote increased interactions with stakeholders and policy makers. To be effective in these interactions, ecologists should consider new approaches to communication and be aware of the potential roles scientists can play in public policy debates. Professional ecologists need to engage with non-scientific audiences; a review of such activities should be included in considerations for promotion, recognition, and awards, while also acknowledging variations in the inclinations and abilities of individual scientists. There are, however, few current standards for how much time ecologists should commit to public outreach, how time allocation might change over a career, or how to evaluate the quality of such activities. We ask ecologists to consider ways to evaluate the quality of interactions with the public and how to reward these efforts appropriately.
Research suggests that fairness perceptions matter to people who are asked to evaluate the acceptability of risks or risk management. Two separate national random surveys (n = 305 and n = 529) addressed Americans' concerns about and acceptance of nanotechnology risk management in the context of the degree to which they view scientists and risk managers as fair. The first survey investigated general views about scientists across four proposed dimensions of fairness (distributional, procedural, interpersonal, and informational). The results show that respondents who believe that the outcomes of scientific research tend to result in unequal benefits (distributional fairness) and that the procedures meant to protect the public from scientific research are biased (procedural fairness) were more concerned about nanotechnology. Believing scientists would treat them with respect (interpersonal fairness) and ensure access to information (informational fairness) were not significant predictors of concern. The second study also looked at these four dimensions of fairness but focused on perceptions of risk managers working for government, universities, and major companies. In addition to concern, it also examined acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Study 2 results were similar to those of study 1 for concern; however, only perceived informational fairness consistently predicted acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Overall, the study points to the value of considering fairness perceptions in the study of public perceptions of nanotechnology.
Debates about new technologies, such as crop and food genetic modification (GM), raise pressing questions about the ways ‘experts’ and ‘non-experts’ communicate. These debates are dynamic, characterised by many voices contesting numerous storylines. The discoursal features, including language choices and communication strategies, of the GM debate are in some ways taken for granted and in others actively manipulated by participants. Although there are many voices, some have more influence than others. This study makes use of fifty hours of in-depth interviews with GM scientists, non-experts, and other stakeholders in the GM debate to examine this phenomenon. We uncover rhetorical devices used by scientists to characterise and ultimately undermine participation by non-experts in areas including rationality, knowledge, understanding, and objectivity. Scientists engage with ‘the public’ from their own linguistic and social domain, without reflexive confirmation of their own status as part of the public and the citizenry. This raises a number of interesting ironies and contradictions, which are explored in the article. As such, it provides valuable insights into an increasingly important type of discourse.
The theme of this year's Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) seems especially timely: Bridging Science and Society. Virtually every major issue now confronting society has a science and technology component, and this means that “the need for general scientific understanding by the public has never been larger, and the penalty for scientific illiteracy never harsher.”* Today, science and technology are receiving unprecedented financial and policy support worldwide, as more countries invest in science and science education with the belief that these investments will enhance economic strength and improve the lives of their citizens. In the United States, the current national leadership frequently focuses on science, science education, and science-based policy-making. As well, the U.S. National Science Board just reported in Science Indicators 2010 that the general citizenry continues to hold scientists in high regard, second only to firefighters in prestige. But this confidence and prestige depend on a belief in the integrity and credibility of science, as well as in the scientific community's ability to help solve global problems. A spate of recent incidents has threatened the public's trust and argues that greater attention is essential to maintaining a strong bridge between science and the rest of society.
Typology for public engagement with science: A conceptual framework for public engagement involving scientists
- M Storksdieck
- C Stylinski
- D Bailey
Storksdieck, M., Stylinski, C., & Bailey, D. (2016). Typology for public engagement with science: A conceptual framework
for public engagement involving scientists. Corvallis, OR. Retrieved from http://informalscience.org/typologypublic-engagement-science-conceptual-framework