Search for: All records

This paper is the culmination of several meaning-making activities between an external researcher, PES practitioners, and social scientist researchers who considered the unique contributions that can be made through RPPs on PES (that is, research-practice partnerships on public engagement with science). Based on the experiences from three RPP projects, the group noted that the PES context may be particularly suited to RPPs, and identified the importance of working as thinking-partners who support reciprocal decision-making. Recommendations are made in support of using these approaches to advance practical knowledge-building and reduce shared frustrations about the disconnect between research and practice in PES. 

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. 

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe five key lessons learned from a decade of studying how scientists and science communicators think about communication strategy. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on the experience of the researcher and the underlying literatures on strategic communication and science communication. Findings The key argument is that the scientific community needs to put more priority into enabling organizations to plan and implement strategic communication efforts on behalf of science. At present, there is too much reliance on individual communicators. Originality/value The value of this paper is in the degree to which it argues for a more strategic, organization-focused approach to science communication that emphasizes the setting of clear behavioral goals, followed by discussion about what communication objectives might help achieve those goals and the communication tactics needed to achieve the prioritized objectives.