broader impacts 2014 presentation (draft)

Understanding Scientists’ Communication BehaviorJohn C. Besley,Ellis N. Brant Chair in Public Relations, Michigan State … with Anthony DudoAdvertising and Public Relations, University of Texas

What I want to highlight today…

Assumptions:• Our society needs strong support for science to flourish• Scientists can help build through effective communication with fellow citizens

Key questions:• What shapes scientists willingness to communicate• What shapes scientists willingness to communicate effectively/strategically?

We must “supplement our studies and activities on the understanding of science by the public, with studies and activities on the understanding of the public by scientists.”

Lots of great qualitative work …

Summary of key findings …• Scientists don’t think much of the public• Scientists don’t think much of the media• Scientists want to be helpful• Scientists know little of “public engagement” idea• Primary solution is BELIEVED TO BE education

A key problem is …• Evidence suggests limited

relationship between science knowledge and attitudes

(Allum, Strugis, & Tabourazi, 2008)

• Limited evidence that scientific knowledge is going to change in near future

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.

Past Research on What gets scientists to “engage”

Attitudes/Norms/Efficacy• Past Behavior (Poliakoff and Web, 2007)

• Positive engagement attitude (Poliakoff and Web, 2007, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013 Dudo, 2013)

• Perceived skills (efficacy) (Poliakoff and Web, 2007, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013, Dudo, 2013)

• Belief that others are engaging (norms) (Poliakoff and Web, 2007)

• Perceived moral obligation(Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Dudo, 2013, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)

• Perceived personal benefits (Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)

Demographics• Field (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013 , Marcinowski et al, 2014)

• Seniority/Rank/Age (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013, Dudo 2013)

• Gender (Bentley & Kvik, 2011)

Other factors• Resources (money/time) (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Marcinowski et al, 2014, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)

• Training (Dudo, 2013)Most recent work: Surveys with AAAS members … • Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement• Fall 2013 (n = 390): Views about online engagement goals

Most recent work

In the last two years, about how many total days did you devote to engagement in the following forms (i.e., two half days = 1 day)?

32.7

45.8

53.7

54.1

64.6

65.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Face-to-Face engagement - Adults

Face-to-Face engagement - Youth

Media interviews - Print/Online

Online engagement - Adults

Media interviews - Audio/Video

Online engagement - Youth.

0 Days

About 1 day

About 2 days

About 3 days

About 4-10 days

More than 10 days

M = 2.76

M = 2.31

M = 1.82

M = 2.34

M = 1.86

M = 1.67

Combined M (alpha = .83) = 2.12

Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement

Many scientists are engaging: F2F is the most popular; Online engagement is least popular.

Most recent work

How willing would you be to take part in the following types of engagement or outreach?

All questions had a range of 1-5 and were asked using a scale anchored by “not at all willing” and “very willing”

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.4

3.6

3.5

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Online engagement - Adults

Online engagement - Youth.

Online Willingness (alpha = .87)

Face-to-Face engagement - Adults

Face-to-Face engagement - Youth

F2F Willingness (alpha = .83)

Media interviews - Audio/Video

Media interviews - Print/Online

Media Willingness (alpha = .94)

Overall, respondents said they be willing to give about 7.6 days, but that’s affected by outliers (100+ days)


Most recent work Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement

Please select the point between the two options that captures your views about ONLINE public engagement

All questions had a range of 1-6 and were asked using a bipolar scale

4.2

4.6

4.4

2.4

2.9

2.6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Scientists not well regarded/Well ...

Colleagues would not approve/Would …

Subjective Norms Average (alpha = .76)

Most scientists do not take part/Do take part …

My colleages do not take part/Do take part …

Descriptive Norms Average (alpha = .75)

Subjective Norms

Most scientists think their colleagues like online engagement, but don’t do it very much

Most recent work Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement

Please select the point between the two options that captures your views about ONLINE public engagement

3.5

5.1

5.1

5.1

4.7

4.7

4.9

4.8

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Do not have time/Have time

Do not think can make difference/Can make …

Think engagement waste of time/Do not …

External Efficacy (alpha = .75)

Do not have skills/Have skills

Expertise too specialized/Not too …

Expertise not interesting/Is …

Internal efficacy (alpha = .75)

All questions had a range of 1-6 and were asked using a bipolar scale

Externa

l Efficacy

Intern

al Effica

cy

Most scientists feel they have little time for engagement but think it can be effective and that they have skills

Online Engagement Willingness

Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates

Things that predict engagement:

• Being younger• Efficacy• Desire to

contribute to debate

Things that don’t:• (Most) demos.• Academic field*• Research type*• University type*• Most objectives*• Most reasons*

*Dropped from model

-0.35

-0.06

0.04

-0.02

0.08

0.05

0.05

0.05

-0.02

0.04

0.24

0.11

0.09

0.09

0.19

-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Age

Female

White

Liberal (5 point scale)

Retired

Fairness: Distributive

Fairness: Procedural

Problem: Low Knowledge

Norms: Subjective

Norms: Descriptive

Efficacy: Time

Efficacy: Internal

Efficacy: External

Identity: Pride

Goal: Contribute to Debate

Adjusted r2: .26


Online Engagement Willingness


Things that matter:• Being younger• Efficacy• Desire to

contribute to debate

Things that don’t seem to matter:• (Most) demos.• Academic field*• Research type*• University type*• Most objectives*• Most reasons*

*Dropped from model

-0.35

-0.06

0.04

-0.02

0.08

0.05

0.05

0.05

-0.02

0.04

0.24

0.11

0.09

0.09

0.19

-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Age

Female

White


Retired




Norms: Subjective

Norms: Descriptive

Efficacy: Time

Efficacy: Internal

Efficacy: External

Identity: Pride

Goal: Contribute to Debate

Adjusted r2: .26


Conclusions from 2012 data:• If you want scientists to engagement, it may help to…

• Decrease perceived time commitment• Increase perceived skill• Increase perceived impact• Increase perceived broader impacts

• Implications for …• How we promote engagement opportunities and training

Most recent work: Goals Fall 2013 (n = 390):

Views about online engagement

All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”

How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …

6.14

5.79

5.96

6.04

5.72

5.88

5.59

4.76

5.22

5.00

4.59

5.34

4.96

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Correcting scientific misinformation

Defending science …

Defensive goals average (r = .63)

Ensuring that people are informed …

Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate

Knowledge goals average (r = .41)

Getting people excited about science

Hearing what others think ..

Demonstrating … openness and transparency

Trust goals average (r = .54)

Framing research … *to+ resonate …

Describing … in ways that make them relevant …

Messaging goal average (r = .54)

Strategic Comm.Priorities



6.14

5.79

5.96

6.04

5.72

5.88

5.59

4.76

5.22

5.00

4.59

5.34

4.96

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00














Best predictors are … (Adj. R2 = .31-37)• Attitudes

• If you think a goal is ethical• Norms

• If you think your colleagues prioritize a goal• Efficacy

• If you think a goal works (external efficacy)• If you think you can do a goal (internal efficacy)





6.14

5.79

5.96

6.04

5.72

5.88

5.59

4.76

5.22

5.00

4.59

5.34

4.96

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
















Conclusions from 2013 data:• If you want scientists to engage more strategically …

• Increase perceived ethicality of strategic goals• Increase perceived impact of strategic goals• Increase perceived skills related to strategic goals

• Implications for …• What we emphasize in engagement training

(Do we focus on skills at expense of goal selection?)

Bonus Material:Not for Presentation

Past Online Engagement


Things that matter:• Funding• Norms• Efficacy

Things that don’t seem to matter:• Views of the public• Demographics• Academic field*• Research type*• University type*• Communication

objectives*• Reasons for

becoming a scientist*

*Dropped from model

-0.10

0.06

-0.05

-0.05

0.02

0.03

-0.07

0.15

-0.02

0.06

-0.02

0.00

-0.13

0.16

0.14

0.20

0.10

0.04

-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Age

Female

White


Retired

Funding: DOD

Funding: NIH

Funding: NSF

Funding: Other Federal




Norms: Subjective

Norms: Descriptive

Efficacy: Time

Efficacy: Internal

Efficacy: External

Identity: Pride

Adjusted r2: .18




6.14

5.79

5.96

6.04

5.72

5.88

5.59

4.76

5.22

5.00

4.59

5.34

4.96

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00














Things that predict ‘defending science’ as priority (Adj. R2 = .36)• Attitudes

• Views about the public (procedural/interpersonal fairness)• If you think defending science is ethical

• Norms• If you think your colleagues engage (descriptive norms)• If you think your colleagues prioritize defending science

• Efficacy• If you think defending science works (external efficacy)• If you think you can defend science (internal efficacy)

Fall 2013 (n = 390): Views about online engagementMost recent work: Goals

Most recent work



6.14

5.79

5.96

6.04

5.72

5.88

5.59

4.76

5.22

5.00

4.59

5.34

4.96

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00














Things that predict ‘informing’ as priority (Adj. R2 = .36)• Attitudes

• Views about the public (procedural/interpersonal fairness)• Enjoying engagement• If you think defending science is ethical

• Norms• If you think your colleagues engage and value engagement

(descriptive and subjective norms)• Demographics

• Being female (-), Being in chemistry (-)• News consumption



broader impacts 2014 presentation (draft)

Education