Scientists’ views about communication objectives

Abstract

This study looks at how United States-based academic scientists from five professional scientific societies think about eight different communication objectives. The degree to which scientists say they would prioritize these objectives in the context of face-to-face public engagement is statistically predicted using the scientists' attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs, as well as demographics and past communication activity, training, and past thinking about the objectives. The data allow for questions about the degree to which such variables consistently predict views about objectives. The research is placed in the context of assessing factors that communication trainers might seek to reshape if they wanted get scientists to consider choosing specific communication objectives.

Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage

“…Both quantity and quality are important, but at some point, it may make more sense to think about how to recruit specific scientists to communicate and then focus on how to make these selected scientists effective. One useful thing to recognize about treating engagement behavior as planned behavior is that, while the current study focused on overall willingness to engage, similar models could be used to understand willingness to prioritize specific objectives (Besley, Dudo, & Yuan, 2017) or specific tactics. On tactics, an area that does not seem to have been studied, research might, for example, seek to assess what motivates participation in science cafés in comparison to more traditional public lectures or more elaborate deliberative events.…”

Public engagement by researchers of different disciplines in Singapore: A qualitative comparison of macro- and meso-level concerns

“…Unlike the establishment of codes of ethics that delineate the sanctions for laboratory work (Sharp, 2019), research institutes seldom mandate public engagement. Past studies have also found that the research fraternity stigmatized researchers who actively conducted public engagement, commonly known as the "Carl Sagan effect," deterring many researchers from conducting public engagement (Bauer and Jensen, 2011;Bentley and Skyvik, 2011;Besley et al, 2018aBesley et al, , 2018bDudo et al, 2018;Ecklund et al, 2012).…”

A Scientist's Guide to Impactful Science Communication: A Priori Goals, Collaborative Assessment, and Engagement with Youth

“…Indeed, outlining goals will help scientists identify a target audience, will guide the development of the content and approach of the communication, and will inform the development of assessment strategies. While an in‐depth discussion of “objectives” versus “goals” can be found elsewhere, herein goals are discussed with respect to a specific desired audience response or outcome irrespective of the timeline (Table ).…”

“…Alongside an increasing appreciation of the importance of public understanding of STEM has been a call for scientists to become more involved in communicating science . Though many may be late to the game, there is currently an undeniably palpable and intensifying enthusiasm for science communication among practicing scientists . Many scientists, however, (me included) are struggling to determine their role in this growing field of science communication.…”

“…Many (possibly most) scientists share the view that science communication is a means of teaching scientific information to the public . Reinforcing this view is the preponderance of professional development training opportunities focused on improving message clarity . Thus, from a scientist/educator's perspective, increasing the public's scientific knowledge using clearly articulated and engaging messaging is a central aspect of science communication.…”