An official website of the United States government
Communication strategies define audience-specific behavioral goals, identify priority cognitive and affective communication objectives necessary to achieving those goals, and propose specific communication tactics meant to increase the likelihood of achieving those objectives. Unfortunately, it appears that few scientific organizations have concrete, evidence-based strategies. This study therefore uses survey data to explore environmental scientists’ willingness to prioritize the behavioral goal of creating a shared public engagement strategy. It finds that the best predictor of prioritizing strategy development is the perceived benefits of having a strategy. The perceived feasibility of developing a strategy given available resources, and trust in their engagement staff were also reasonable predictors of strategy prioritization. Early career respondents and those who said they had previously thought about developing an engagement strategy were also more likely to say they think developing an engagement strategy should be prioritized. The study builds on the strategic communication as planned behavior approach to try to better understand scientists’ communication choices in a way that could support efforts to improve these choices.
more »
« less
Ecologists Prioritize Listening to Community Perspectives When They See the Benefit: Norms and Self-Efficacy Beliefs Appear to Have Little Impact
This study uses survey data to explore ecologists’ willingness to prioritize the behavioral goal of considering local community members’ perspectives in the context of research at Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. It finds that believing in the benefits of such listening is a relatively strong statistical predictor of expressing a willingness to prioritize listening. Neither normative beliefs nor agency beliefs were strong correlates of prioritizing listening. Women and younger scientists were more willing to prioritize listening as a goal. The study builds on the “strategic science communication as planned behavior” approach to try to better understand scientists’ communication choices.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10497471
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Science Communication
- Volume:
- 46
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1075-5470
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 511-537
- Size(s):
- p. 511-537
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)This study initially reports on qualitative interviews (n = 17) with scientists at two Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites in the northeastern United States. These interviews suggest the need for greater attention to the role of communication professionals and institutional leadership in fostering high-quality public engagement. The study also reports on a follow-up quantitative survey (n = 68) conducted to better understand the degree to which LTER scientists’ views about communication professionals were meaningfully associated with perceptions about the need for robust engagement funding. The project was initially designed based on the Integrated Behavioral Model to assess how individual LTER scientists’ engagement-related attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs affected their communication activities. However, the combined results highlight the potential value of additional research and theorization aimed at better understanding the factors that might lead to greater cooperation between scientists and organizational communicators.more » « less
-
Public trust in scientists is critical to our ability to face societal threats. Here, across five pre-registered studies (N = 2,034), we assessed whether perceptions of scientists’ intellectual humility affect perceived trustworthiness of scientists and their research. In study 1, we found that seeing scientists as higher in intellectual humility was associated with greater perceived trustworthiness of scientists and support for science-based beliefs. We then demonstrated that describing a scientist as high (versus low) in intellectual humility increased perceived trustworthiness of the scientist (studies 2–4), belief in their research (studies 2–4), intentions to follow their research-based recommendations (study 3) and information-seeking behaviour (study 4). We further demonstrated that these effects were not moderated by the scientist’s gender (study 3) or race/ethnicity (study 4). In study 5, we experimentally tested communication approaches that scientists can use to convey intellectual humility. These studies reveal the benefits of seeing scientists as intellectually humble across medical, psychological and climate science topics.more » « less
-
Abstract Algae, an important foundation of aquatic ecosystems, can become a nuisance or harmful when it grows in excess. Many government agencies have a role in monitoring, responding to, and confirming a harmful algal bloom (HAB). HAB scientists have important information to share, however, given the complexities of HABs, which often involve decoupled drivers from observed impacts, presents challenges to outreach and engagement. Understanding key audience information needs can help scientists prioritize key science communication and engagement opportunities to maximize the impact of such efforts. Scientists may need additional science communication training or support for scientist‐community partnerships. This will be evermore important into the future with the likely range expansion of HABs due to climate change.more » « less
-
When scientists act unethically, their actions can cause harm to participants, undermine knowledge creation, and discredit the scientific community. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training is one of the main ways institutions try to prevent scientists from acting unethically. However, this only addresses the problem if scientists value the training, and if the problem stems from ignorance. This study looks at what scientists think causes unethical behavior in science, with the hopes of improving RCR training by shaping it based on the views of the targeted audience ( n = 14 scientists). Previous studies have surveyed scientists about what they believe causes unethical behavior using pre-defined response items. This study uses a qualitative research methodology to elicit scientists’ beliefs without predefining the range of responses. The data for this phenomenographic study were collected from interviews which presented ethical case studies and asked subjects how they would respond to those situations. Categories and subcategories were created to organize their reasonings. This work will inform the development of future methods for preventing unethical behavior in research.more » « less
