Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists' willingness to choose specific tactics

Going beyond political ideology: A computational analysis of civic trust in science

Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the factors that predict trust/distrust in science. However, most of these studies are based on closed-ended survey research, which does not allow researchers to gain a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. This study integrated survey analysis conducted within the United States with computational text analysis to reveal factors previously obscured by traditional survey methodologies. Even after controlling for political ideology-which has been the most significant explanatory factor in determining trust in science within a survey framework-we found those with concerns over boundary-crossing (i.e. concerns or perceptions that science overlaps with politics, the government, and funding) were less likely to trust science than their counterparts.

Lessons learned and recommendations in conducting solutions-driven environmental and public health research

Solutions-driven research is a transdisciplinary approach that incorporates diverse forms of expertise to identify solutions to stakeholder-identified environmental problems. This qualitative evaluation of early solutions-driven research projects provides transferable recommendations to improve researcher and stakeholder experiences and outcomes in transdisciplinary environmental research projects. Researchers with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development recently piloted a solutions-driven research approach in two parallel projects; one addressing nutrient management related to coastal waters and another studying wildland fire smoke impacts on indoor air quality. Studying the experiences of those involved with these pilots can enhance the integration of researcher and experiential expertise, improving solutions-driven research outcomes. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with 17 EPA researchers and 12 other stakeholders and reflective case narratives from the authors. We used conventional content analysis to qualitatively analyze perspectives on implementing innovative engagement and research approaches in a solutions-driven process. Findings that reflect common perspectives include the importance of continuous engagement, the challenges of differing timelines and priorities for researchers and stakeholders, and the need to define consistent markers of success across researchers and stakeholders. Key lessons to improve transdisciplinary research identified from the analysis are (1) improving clarity of roles and responsibilities; (2) planning to provide sufficient, continuous project funding over multiple years; (3) expecting research needs and plans to adapt to evolving circumstances; and (4) clearly defining the end of the project.

Science Communication Training Imparts Confidence and Influences Public Engagement Activity

The impacts of science are felt across all socio-ecological levels, ranging from the individual to societal. In order to adapt or respond to scientific discoveries, novel technologies, or biomedical or environmental challenges, a fundamental understanding of science is necessary. However, antiscientific rhetoric, mistrust in science, and the dissemination of misinformation hinder the promotion of science as a necessary and beneficial component of our world. Scientists can promote scientific literacy by establishing dialogues with nonexperts, but they may find a lack of formal training as a barrier to public engagement. To address this, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) launched the Art of Science Communication course in 2015 in order to provide scientists at all career stages with introductory science communication training. In 2020, we conducted a retrospective survey of former participants to evaluate how the course had impacted participants' science communication behaviors and their confidence engaging with nonexperts, as well as other benefits to their professional development. We found that scientists were significantly more likely to communicate with nonexpert audiences following the course compared to before (77% versus 51%; P < 0.0001). In addition, quantitative and qualitative data suggested that scientists were more confident in their ability to communicate science after completing the course (median of 8, standard deviation [SD] of 0.98 versus median of 5, SD of 1.57; P < 0.0001). Qualitative responses from participants supported quantitative findings. This suggested that the Art of Science Communication course is highly effective at improving the confidence of scientists to engage with the public and other nonexpert audiences regardless of career status. These data-driven perspectives provide a rationale for the implementation of broadly accessible science communication training programs that promote public engagement with science.

What are you assessing when you measure "trust" in scientists with a direct measure?

This article analyzes three publicly available datasets focused on trust in science and scientists. It specifically seeks to understand what direct measures of trust (i.e. questions that directly ask respondents how much they trust scientists) assess in terms of discrete measures of trustworthiness (i.e. perceptions of scientists' ability, integrity, and benevolence). Underlying the analyses is a concern that direct measures of trust are a poor substitute for differentiating between discrete trustworthiness perceptions and behavioral trust in the form of a specific willingness to make oneself vulnerable. The research concludes that it is unclear what direct trust measures are capturing in any given context and suggests that researchers should better use trust-related theory when designing surveys and trust-focused campaigns. The secondary data used come from the General Social Survey, Gallup, and the Pew Research Center.

A triangulated approach for understanding scientists' perceptions of public engagement with science

Scientists are expected to engage with the public, especially when society faces challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change, but what public engagement means to scientists is not clear. We use a triangulated, mixed-methods approach combining survey and focus group data to gain insight into how pre-tenure and tenured scientists personally conceptualize public engagement. Our findings indicate that scientists' understanding of public engagement is similarly complex and diverse as the scholarly literature. While definitions and examples of one-way forms of engagement are the most salient for scientists, regardless of tenure status, scientists also believe public engagement with science includes two-way forms of engagement, such as citizen and community involvement in research. These findings suggest that clear definitions of public engagement are not necessarily required for its application but may be useful to guide scientists in their engagement efforts, so they align with what is expected of them.

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.

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

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.

Critical topics and good practices for trust in science communication before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

For a qualitative analysis of factors affecting trust in science communication (scicomm) we used the Delphi method to reach a pool of experts based in Italy and Belgium (researchers/academics, journalists and scicomm practitioners) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results revealed a ‘strong’ consensus (confirmed before and during the pandemic) about good practices promoting trust in scicomm (mainly based on direct interactions with targeted audiences), and about critical topics where trust plays a key role. Such topics include vaccines and the role of pharmaceutical companies, climate change and environmental issues, medical sciences, communication of health risks and public health issues. According to our results, issues related to health and environment were perceived as critical and controversial subjects for trust in scicomm even before the pandemic. The same pool of experts also expressed very diverse views regarding risks and threats to trust in scicomm, and the social, cultural, political and environmental factors that can increase and promote trust in scientific communication among lay audiences. Such diversity reveals the need for further research to explore differences due to the context, based on the individual views of experts or generated from a conceptualisation of trust in scicomm which may be still fuzzy and unclear.

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.

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.

Messaging on Slow Impacts: Applying Lessons Learned from Climate Change Communication to Catalyze and Improve Marine Nutrient Communication

Building publics' understanding about human-environmental causes and impacts of nutrient pollution is difficult due to the diverse sources and, at times, extended timescales of increasing inputs, consequences to ecosystems, and recovery after remediation. Communicating environmental problems with "slow impacts" has long been a challenge for scientists, public health officials, and science communicators, as the time delay for subsequent consequences to become evident dilutes the sense of urgency to act. Fortunately, scientific research and practice in the field of climate change communication has begun to identify best practices to address these challenges. Climate change demonstrates a delay between environmental stressor and impact, and recommended practices for climate change communication illustrate how to explain and motivate action around this complex environmental problem. Climate change communication research provides scientific understanding of how people evaluate risk and scientific information about climate change. We used a qualitative coding approach to review the science communication and climate change communication literature to identify approaches that could be used for nutrients and how they could be applied. Recognizing the differences between climate change and impacts of nutrient pollution, we also explore how environmental problems with delayed impacts demand nuanced strategies for effective communication and public engagement. Applying generalizable approaches to successfully communicate the slow impacts related to nutrient pollution across geographic contexts will help build publics' understanding and urgency to act on comprehensive management of nutrient pollution, thereby increasing protection of coastal and marine environments.

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

We have little systematic knowledge about scholars' goals for public engagement in the academic literature. This study therefore provides a secondary analysis of two surveys of scholars that included closed-ended questions about goals. One survey from 2017 was from a sample of Canadian grant recipients from a federal science funding agency, while the second survey from 2018 comes from a sample of professors at top American research universities. The focus of this research is on both presenting novel data about scholars' expressed goals and exploring the relationships between these goals and potential predictors of these goals, including demographics, past engagement behavior, and overall views about public engagement. Areas for future research are then described.