sra 2016: do scientists who study 'risky' topic communicate more
TRANSCRIPT
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
Do scientists who study ‘risky’ topics communicate more and have different
goals and objectives?
Our NSF grant goals …• Help trainers understand how
scientists are thinking about engagement• Help trainers identify drivers of engagement,
including drivers of goals and objectives• Get more scientists to communicate
more strategically (i.e., set and achieve goals)
Tactics Communication Objectives
Ultimate Goals
Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific SocietiesType of society Resp.
NResp. Rate
Univ. n
Avg. AgeAll/Univ.
MaleAll/Univ.
WhiteAll/Univ.
General 1,263 9% 1130 61/62 69/70% 85/91%
Chemistry 1,919 8% 601 55/51 72/66% 78/89%
Biochemistry 513 6% 384 57/55 63/61% 78/85%
Microbiology 1,167 9% 716 57/54 56/55% 75/84%
Geological 1,103 10% 971 51/51 59/65% 88/90%
Geophysical 2,419 10% 1196 51/47 61/56% 85/90%
Ecological 860 16% 513 51/50 58/56% 83/92%
Social Science 963 22% 944 50/51 61/61% 89/89%
Notes: General society received 5 contacts; ecological society received 3 contacts. All other societies received 4 contacts. Sample for some reported questions smaller because of sample splitting by engagement mode. All data presented preliminary.
We will focus on:1. university respondents to
allow for best comparisons2. Societies where we asked
about risk profile of research
Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific SocietiesType of society Resp.
NResp. Rate
Univ. n
Avg. AgeAll/Univ.
MaleAll/Univ.
WhiteAll/Univ.
General 1,263 9% 1130 61/62 69/70% 85/91%
Chemistry 1,919 8% 601 55/51 72/66% 78/89%
Biochemistry 513 6% 384 57/55 63/61% 78/85%
Microbiology 1,167 9% 716 57/54 56/55% 75/84%
Geological 1,103 10% 971 51/51 59/65% 88/90%
Geophysical 2,419 10% 1196 51/47 61/56% 85/90%
Ecological 860 16% 513 51/50 58/56% 83/92%
Social Science 963 22% 944 50/51 61/61% 89/89%
Most respondents answered …• The subject I study is controversial• The subject that I study is one where
the public sees more risk than there really is• The subject that I study is one where
the public sees too little risk(7-pt. Strongly disagree-Strongly agree)
7 point Likert, Strongly disagree to Strongly agree
General
Chemistry
Biochemist
ry
Microbiology
Geological
Geophysica
l
Ecologica
l1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
The subject I study is controversial…
General
Chemistry
Biochemist
ry
Microbiology
Geological
Geophysica
l
Ecologica
l1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00
The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk
General
Chemistry
Biochemist
ry
Microbiology
Geological
Geophysica
l
Ecologica
l1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00
The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is
What’s key …•Chemists and microbiologists
worry public seeing too much risk•Earth scientists think public see
too little risk, more controversy•Variations across societies•Average r = .24 (range = .20 to .28)
Strategic Communication as Planned Behavior (SCaPB?)
Attitude
Injunctive and Subjective Norms
Internal and External Efficacy Beliefs
Cont
ext
(Dem
ogra
phic
s, e
tc.)
Intention/willingness to use strategic communication
behavior
Use of strategic communication
behavior
What constitutes ‘strategic communication behavior’?• Choice of communication channels
Choice of communication tacticsChoice of an objective(knowledge, excitement, trust, norms, efficacy etc.)
… in order to achieve a desired goal
Strategic Science/RiskCommunication?
Do risk views shape engagement channel use/willingness? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would
lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would
make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet)
M = 2.20 to 3.05, SD = 1.37 to 1.58
M = 1.60 to 2.29, SD = .85 to 1.28
M = 2.04 to 2.73, SD = 1.67 to 2.07
(Differences between societies significant)1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Controlling for society and age)
Do risk views shape engagement channel use? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would
lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would
make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet)
F2F: Past Media: Past
Online: Past
B SE B SE B SE
The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is
..01 .02 -0.01 .01 0.03 .02
The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk
.00 .02 -.01 .01 .03 .02
The subject I study is controversial .14 .01 .15 .01 .16 .02
Adjusted R2 .06 .10 .06N 4,535 4,508 4,483
Notes: Bold significantly different from 0.00, controlling for age, gender and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.
What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would
lead scientists to want to engage more?
Do risk views shape engagement channel use/willingness? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would
lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would
make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet) M = 5.38 to 6.10, SD = 1.23 to 1.62
M = 4.84 to 5.58, SD = 1.51 to 1.83M = 2.04 to 2.73, SD = 1.67 to 2.07
(Differences between societies significant)
(Controlling for society and age)
Do risk views shape engagement channel use willingness? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would
lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would
make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet)
F2F: Willingnes
s
Media: Willingnes
s
Online: Willingnes
sB SE B SE B SE
The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is
-.02 .01 -.03 .02 -.04 .02
The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk
.00 .01 -.00 .01 .05 .02
The subject I study is controversial .10 .01 .12 .01 .08 .02
Adjusted R2 .06 .04 .06N 4,514 4,508 4,483Notes: Controlling for age, gender and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.
What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would
lead scientists to want to engage more?
Small-ish relationships ...
Strategic Science/RiskCommunication?
Do risk views shape engagement goals? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy
would to support for policy and behavior change goals
• (And maybe less relative focus on some other goals?)
Piped Text
Mavg = 5.46 to 5.74, SD = 1.23 to 1.37Mavg = 4.92 to 5.96, SD = 1.31 to 1.58Mavg = 6.12 to 6.19, SD = 1.05 to 1.14Mavg = 4.91 to 5.17, SD = 1.35 to 1.53 Mavg = 5.04 to 5.48, SD = 1.25 to 1.47 Mavg = 6.08 to 6.43, SD = .97 to 1.23
(Differences between societies, modes often significant)
Do risk views shape engagement goals? What would we expect/hope?• More disagreement/controversy
would to support for policy and behavior change goals
• (And maybe less relative focus on some other goals?)
Goal: Policy
Change
Goal: Personal Decisions
Goal: Ensure
FundingPolicy - Careers
B SE B SE B SE B SE
The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is
-.01 .01 .04 .01 .03 .02 -.03 .02
The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk
.00 .01 .04 .01 .00 .01 -.02 .02
The subject I study is controversial .03 .01 .02 .01 -.08 .01 .04 .02
Adjusted R2 .02 .01 .05 .01N 4,522 4,520 4,506 4,504
Notes: Controlling for age, gender, condition, and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.
Pretty tiny relationships ...
Strategic Science/RiskCommunication?
Do risk views shape engagement objectives? What would we hope?• More disagreement/controversy
would lead to great focus on strategic outcomes (e.g., listening, warmth, competence, framing)
Piped Text
Mavg = 5.25 to 5.56, SD = 1.13 to 1.26
Mavg = 4.94 to 5.33, SD = 1.25 to 1.33
Mavg = 5.99 to 6.07, SD = .87 to 1.02
Mavg = 5.56 to 6.04, SD = 1.22 to 1.39
Mavg = 5.46 to 5.79, SD = 1.14 to 1.21
Mavg = 4.78 to 5.18, SD = 1.19 to 1.36
Mavg = 5.63 to 5.96, SD = 1.04 to 1.22
Mavg = 4.51 to 4.98, SD = 1.25 to 1.37
Mavg = 5.02 to 5.35, SD = 1.29 to 1.42
(Differences between societies, modes often significant)
Do risk views shape engagement goals? Objective:
Inform/ Aware
Objective:Interest/
Excite
Objective: Defend Science
B SE B SE B SE
The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is
-.01 .01 .01 .01 .04 .01
The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01
The subject I study is controversial .02 .01 -.05 .01 .00 .01
Adjusted R2 .01 .02 .01N 4,522 4,520 4,516Notes: Controlling for age, gender, condition, and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.
What would we hope?• More disagreement/controversy
would lead to great focus on strategic outcomes (e.g., listening, warmth, competence, framing)
Do risk views shape engagement goals?
Objective: Hear
Objective: Show caring
Objective: Show
expertise
Objective: Show
(re)frameB SE B SE B SE B SE
The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is
.03 .01 .02 .01 .03 .01 .02 .01
The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk
.03 .01 .04 .01 .04 .01 .06 .01
The subject I study is controversial -.01 .01 -.02 .01 .00 .01 .03 .01
Adjusted R2 .01 .01 .01 .01N 4,516 4,508 4,512 4,494Notes: Controlling for age, gender, condition, and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.
What would we hope?• More disagreement/controversy
would lead to great focus on strategic outcomes (e.g., listening, warmth, competence, framing)
Tiny relationships and no clear differences between objectives ...
What did we learn?1. Scientists who see their area as controversial
engage more, and are more willing to engage2. Some, limited evidence that …• Policy goals associated
with perceived controversy• Personal goals associated with
perception that public sees too little risk3. Little meaningful evidence that scientists
choose objectives based on perceived risk profile of their field
Is this our failure?