Mapping mental models of science communication: How academics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland understand and practice science communication

Abstract

The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication – how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on – shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland ( n = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: ‘Public Understanding of Science’, ‘Public Engagement with Science’ and ‘Strategic Science Communication’. The results suggest that the ‘Strategic Science Communication’ model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The ‘Public Engagement’ model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while ‘Public Understanding’ is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics’ mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.

Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands

“…For example, Burchell found that participatory approaches to science communication was considerably higher in fields like the arts, humanities, and social sciences compared to the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields [ 116 ]. Similar results are also reported by Kessler and colleagues, with scientists from the humanities, social sciences, and life sciences being more likely to adhere to dialogue and participatory perspectives [ 21 ].…”

“…Moreover, while Howell and colleagues [ 115 ] found that both late and early career scientists held positive views on the role of social media in providing opportunities to engage with the public, our respondents’ focus nevertheless remained on deficit-oriented goals when asked about their social media science communication goals. While we can only speculate that perhaps the differences between the academic contexts of the Netherlands and of the United States might be the underlying cause of these differences, further research comparing academic contexts and science communication approaches among scientists (much like the one conducted by Kessler and colleagues [ 21 ]) could shed more light on the issue.…”

“…Here we argue that—while understudied—scientists’ personal definitions form the basis for their approaches to science communication and their communication activities. The importance of understanding scientists’ “individual conceptions of science communication” (or what the authors refer to as ‘mental models’) is further highlighted by a very recent study conducted by Kessler and colleagues across three European countries [ 21 ]. Their findings suggest that scientists’ individual conceptions largely align with the ways in which they practice science communication.…”

“…The scientific community has often been primarily focused on disseminating information and building public knowledge about science [ 22 – 24 ] and on developing theoretical models that describe the relationship between scientists and the public [ 25 , 26 ]. However, very few studies have focused on understanding the specific goals scientists are trying to accomplish through their science communication efforts [ 21 , 27 ], and scholars have generally not treated communication choices related to strategies, objectives, and goals as behaviours that can both be studied and reshaped [ 28 ].…”

Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

“…It is part of the author's research agenda working with the ZSoA to investigate the distribution and consequences of researchers' perceived pressure. To date, the following papers addressing, among other things, aspects of the wider research agenda on the distribution and consequences of researchers' perceived pressure have been published or submitted for peer review : Johann, Raabe et al (2021), Johann, Rathmann, et al (2021, and Kessler et al (2022).…”