Exploring scholars' public engagement goals in Canada and the United States

Communicating trust and trustworthiness through scientists' biographies: Benevolence beliefs

A goal of many science communicators is to foster trust in scientists and their work. This study investigates if existing textual resources that scientists create in the course of their regular activities can be improved to enhance perceptions of scientists as trustworthy. Building on Mayer et al.'s integrative model of organizational trust, we examine how communicating benevolence through short biographies can affect trustworthiness perceptions using a 3 (degree of benevolence information: high, unspecified, low) × 3 (research area: crop genetics, corn and soy genetics, biotechnology use) survey design. We find that the degree of benevolence information significantly influences perceptions of benevolence and integrity, as well as willingness to trust, with these effects being consistent across different research areas. However, the degree of benevolence communicated had no significant effect on the perceived competence of the scientists. These findings underscore the importance of highlighting benevolence in communication to positively influence trustworthiness perceptions, thus offering insights for science communication practices.

Visible scientists in digital communication environments: An analysis of their role performance as public experts on Twitter/X during the Covid-19 pandemic

In response to significant societal challenges, there is a growing demand for scientists to actively engage in public discussions. The recent Covid-19 pandemic led to the sudden visibility of certain scientists, necessitating them to extend their roles beyond research and actively communicate with the general public. Online platforms allow for direct engagement but increase the challenge by interconnecting different public arenas. Our case study examined the role performance of visible virologists on Twitter/X in six different time periods during the pandemic in Germany (N = 1003). Findings indicate that they often express calls to action, and voice their own views, but seldom address uncertainty. Differences over time were found in their use of different types of statements, scientific jargon and emotional language. They also utilised the opportunities of direct communication, performing roles like watchdogs or advocates, highlighting the importance for scientists to reflect on their roles as communicators.

Universities claim to value community-engaged scholarship: So why do they discourage it?

With current crises of academic relevance and legitimacy, there is a need for epistemic equity inherent to community-engaged research. Scholars in science communication and science and technology studies have analyzed, advocated for, and conducted public engagement in pursuit of this goal. However, despite desires to celebrate public engagement, US academic institutions and organizations often present barriers to meaningful community-engaged research. From tenure and promotion requirements, to lack of recognition and resources, universities in the American academic landscape are not currently organized to support such work. In this article, we offer a conceptual framework to examine the complex structural dimensions of academic institutions that have systematically discouraged and devalued faculty participation in community-engaged scholarship. We outline four such structural dimensions: interrogating epistemic biases, neoliberalist tendencies, gendered norms, and colonial-racist defaults. Our goal is to illuminate processes that could inform interventions to bridge the gap between academic aspirations for community-engaged work and current actions in the academy that undermine it.

Academics' Attitudes Toward Engaging in Public Discussions: Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Engagement Conditions

Growing demands and expectations on the side of policy makers and the public have changed the conditions for academics' engagement in public discussions. At the same time, risks related to this engagement for the professional and even private lives of academics have become apparent. Conducting a survey experiment among 4091 tenured professors in Germany, we study how these conditions causally affect academics' attitudes toward engaging. Consistent with the crowding-out of intrinsic motivation, we find less-positive attitudes when emphasizing demands for engagement by public authorities and public expectations toward science's societal relevance. Effects are particularly strong among professors endorsing science-society relations. Moreover, effects are similar when highlighting risks associated with engagement, but more pronounced for females and younger professors. Emphasizing public support for academics' engagement has no discernible effects. We conclude that considering individual incentive structures and safeguarding against negative repercussions may promote academics' engagement and an adequate representation of the diversity of academics in the public.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11162-022-09725-4.

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

The field of science communication has grown considerably over the past decade, and so have the number of scientific writings on what science communication is and how it should be practiced. The multitude of theoretisations and models has led to a lack of clarity in defining science communication, and to a highly popularised-and theorised-rhetorical shift from deficit to dialogue and participation. With this study, we aim to remediate the absence of research into what science communication is, for scientists themselves. We also investigate whether the transition towards dialogue and participation is reflected in the goals scientists identify as important to their science communication efforts, both in a general and a social media context. For this, we analyse survey data collected from scientists in the Netherlands using thematic qualitative analysis and statistical analysis. Our results reveal six main dimensions of science communication as defined by our respondents. The 584 definitions we analyse demonstrate a focus on a one-way process of transmission and translation of scientific results and their impacts towards a lay audience, via mostly traditional media channels, with the goals of making science more accessible, of educating audiences, and of raising awareness about science. In terms of the goals identified as most important by scientists in the Netherlands, we find goals aligned with the deficit and dialogue models of science communication to be the most important. Overall, our findings suggest we should be cautious in the face of recent claims that we live in a new era of dialogue, transparency, and participation in the realm of science communication.

Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice

This essay argues that we should treat science and risk communicators' choices about tactics, objectives, and goals as behaviors to advance both research and practice. Doing so allows for a discussion about how to use theories about behavior change and trust-building to help foster more strategic communication choices. The essay also seeks to anticipate and respond to potential arguments against using behavior change theories to encourage more strategic communication choices. We argue that it is possible to use behavior change tactics ethically if those tactics are aimed at increasing the likelihood that all participants in communication-including decisions makers like risk scientists-meaningfully engage with true, relevant information. Under the right conditions, such engagement is what should allow for the development of new knowledge, as well as a range of evidence-based evaluative beliefs, feelings, and frames. Being strategic when making choices about communication should also help with identifying situations in which justice, equity, diversity, or inclusion issues require additional attention. The essay concludes by noting that the difficulty of efficient and effective science and risk communication may require increased emphasis on getting experts such as scientists to collaborate with expert communication advisors. It may also be necessary to increase the capacity of science- and risk-focused communication practitioners.

Engaging the public or asking your friends? Analysing science-related crowdfunding using behavioural and survey data

Science-related crowdfunding enables public engagement with science. However, we know little about citizens engaging with science this way: Who are the people engaging with and donating to science through crowdfunding - and how do they decide how much to give? This study analyses behavioural and survey data from the Swiss crowdfunding platform wemakeit (N = 576). Results illustrate that a small, non-representative segment of the public engages with science through crowdfunding. Compared to the general public in Switzerland, these backers have an above-average education and income. Science-related crowdfunding mainly reaches citizens with an existing interest in science, personal ties to project initiators or the scientific community. The size of backers' donations correlates with perceived personal appeals in campaigns or connections to initiators rather than projects' scientific merit. While science-related crowdfunding thus opens up new avenues for public outreach by the scientific community, its potential for broader public engagement with science seems limited.

Perceived behavioral control as a moderator: Scientists' attitude, norms, and willingness to engage the public

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.

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars’ willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars’ lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a “trickle-up” effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members’ decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

Public Engagement Improvement in STI Policies: Challenges and Solutions

Studies show that actors who are directly involved with science, technology and innovation (STI), such as scientists and managers, are more likely to participate. Therefore, policy documents, as an important guiding factor, need to emphasize the engagement of various stakeholders. On the other hand, due to the need for innovative models in public engagement, social innovation has provided new ways to promote it. Therefore, this study aims to strengthen public engagement in STI policies through social innovation in Iran.

In order to data gathering, questionnaires, interviews, document analysis and literature review were used in different stages of the research. In the first step, after interviewing experts on the dimensions and components of public engagement in STI, in the context of macro-policy documents, a model was extracted using thematic analysis and fuzzy delphi techniques. Then, in the second step, this study identified the statements related to public engagement in STI in macro-policy documents using quantitative content analysis, and thus the degree of attention to public engagement in STI macro-policy documents was determined. In the next step, this study sought to find solutions to its weaknesses in STI by examining the opinions of knowledgeable people about public engagement methods. Then, these solutions were evaluated in terms of their relevance to the Iranian context and social innovativeness, and finally, the selected solutions were ranked by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.

Risk Researchers' Views About the Goal of Trying to Ensure Policymakers Consider Scientific Evidence

A survey of members of a scientific society focused on risk analysis suggests substantial support for seeing their scientific society pursue the communication goal of "trying to ensure that policymakers consider scientific evidence." Support for pursuing this goal was largely predicted by researchers' beliefs that it was ethical for the society to pursue the goal, that it would be satisfying to see their society pursue the goal, and the belief that the society could have a positive impact on society by pursuing the goal. Normative beliefs about pursuing the goal and organizational efficacy beliefs were not good predictors of goal support. Goal support was measured using a direct measure of perceived goal importance as well as measures focused on the degree to which respondents wanted their society to put resources into providing members with opportunities to pursue the goal and the amount of funding that members thought the society should devote to pursuing the goal. The theory underlying the work argues that we can treat science communicators' choices about communication goals, objectives, and tactics as "planned behaviors" and thus study them using traditional behavior change models.

Strategic science communication in the age of politicization

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.

Eine Frage der Erwartungen?

Wissenschaftskommunikation trägt dazu bei, wissenschaftliches Wissen für die breite Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen. Welche Ansprüche das Publikum hierbei an die Vermittlung richtet und inwiefern dies den Vorstellungen der Kommunikator*innen entspricht, wird bislang in Forschung und Praxis wenig berücksichtigt. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Qualitätsfragen befindet sich in der Wissenschaftskommunikation noch in ihren Anfängen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird auf der Grundlage des wissenschaftsjournalistischen Qualitätsdiskurses ein Vorschlag für mögliche Qualitätsdimensionen von Wissenschaftskommunikation entwickelt und am Beispiel des etablierten Formats der wissenschaftlichen Expert*innendebatte operationalisiert. Im Rahmen einer Pre-Post-Befragung erhebt die vorliegende Studie, orientiert an den Annahmen der Theorie der subjektiven Qualitätsauswahl von Wolling, Qualitätserwartungen und -bewertungen aus Publikumssicht. Die Perspektive der Formatverantwortlichen und was ihrer Ansicht nach die Qualität von Wissenschaftskommunikation kennzeichnet, wird kontrastierend in leitfadengestützten Expert*inneninterviews thematisiert.

Das Publikum erwartet insbesondere Glaubwürdigkeit, Zugänglichkeit, Unabhängigkeit, Neutralität und Vielfalt von dem Format und den debattierenden Expert*innen. Diese Dimensionen stellen gewissermaßen Grundvoraussetzungen dar, damit Teilnehmende den vermittelten Inhalten vertrauen und sie gegebenenfalls in ihrem Verhalten berücksichtigen können. Obwohl sich das Format in seiner Konzeption am Public Engagement-Paradigma orientiert, ist ihnen eine Einbindung weniger wichtig. Es zeigen sich Inkongruenzen zu dem, worauf die Kommunikator*innen beim Debattenformat Wert legen. Sie erachten im Unterschied zum Publikum eine hohe Themenaktualität und gesellschaftliche Relevanz als zentrale Qualitätsmerkmale. Das Spannungsfeld zwischen einem normativen Anspruch an Wissenschaftskommunikation und dessen Umsetzung in der Praxis spiegelt sich in ihren Aussagen wider.

Testing how different narrative perspectives achieve communication objectives and goals in online natural science videos

Communication of science through online media has become a primary means of disseminating and connecting science with a public audience. However, online media can come in many forms and stories of scientific discovery can be told by many individuals. We tested whether the relationship of a spokesperson to the science story being told (i.e., the narrative perspective) influences how people react and respond to online science media. We created five video stimuli that fell into three treatments: a scientist presenting their own research (male or female), a third-party summarizing research (male or female), and an infographic-like video with no on-screen presenter. Each of these videos presented the same fabricated science story about the discovery of a new ant species (Formicidae). We used Qualtrics to administer and obtain survey responses from 515 participants (~100 per video). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the videos and after viewing the stimulus answered questions assessing their perceptions of the video (trustworthiness and enjoyment), the spokesperson (trustworthiness and competence), scientists in general (competence and warmth), and attitudes towards the research topic and funding. Participants were also asked to recall what they had seen and heard. We determined that when participants watched a video in which a scientist presented their own research, participants perceived the spokesperson as having more expertise than a third-party presenter, and as more trustworthy and having more expertise than the no-spokesperson stimuli. Viewing a scientist presenting their own work also humanized the research, with participants more often including a person in their answer to the recall question. Overall, manipulating the narrative perspective of the source of a single online video communication effort is effective at impacting immediate objective outcomes related to spokesperson perceptions, but whether those objectives can positively influence long-term goals requires more investigation.

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

The 40th Anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis presents an apt time to step back and review the field of risk communication. In this review, we first evaluate recent debates over the field's current state and future directions. Our takeaway is that efforts to settle on a single, generic version of what constitutes risk communication will be less productive than an open-minded exploration of the multiple forms that comprise today's vibrant interdisciplinary field. We then review a selection of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship appearing in the published literature since 2010. Studies on trust in risk communication messengers continued to figure prominently, while new research directions emerged on the opportunities and critical challenges of enhancing transparency and using social media. Research on message attributes explored how conceptual insights particularly relating to framing, affective and emotional responses, and uncertainty might be operationalized to improve message effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrated the importance of evaluation and how varying single attributes alone is unlikely to achieve desired results. Research on risk communication audiences advanced on risk perception and multiway engagement with notable interest in personal factors such as gender, race, age, and political orientation. We conclude by arguing that the field's interdisciplinary tradition should be further nurtured to drive the next evolutionary phase of risk communication research.