Introduction
In 2015, climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann appeared on HBOâs Real Time with Bill Maher (Real Time with Bill Maher, 2015). Mann fumbled through the short conversation. He meandered through unclear talking points, displayed low energy, and failed to counter Maherâs foul mood. In this interview, Mann missed an opportunity to contribute something noteworthy to the public sphere about climate change.
Strategic communicators scrutinizing this interview would have a lot to critique. They would question whether it made strategic sense for someone like Dr. Mann to appear on Maherâs show. They would wonder what goals he was trying to achieve. And they would wonder if this platform, an argumentative late-night talk show, matched his communication goals.
Modern scientist communicators need more than good intentions when they engage the public. They need skills and strategy. This requires scientists to develop more sophisticated communication sensibilities, and trainers play a key role in this. Our research program investigates the role of strategy for science communicators and the trainers who support their efforts.
This chapter includes key insights and implications of our research program. First, we outline how scientists approach the public communication of science. Do these efforts include evidence of strategic thinking? Next, we describe how North American-based science communication trainers approach supporting scientistsâ communication efforts. Do they focus on strategic communication in their curricula? We conclude by highlighting implications for practice and by suggesting future research directions.
Scientists as communicators
Calls for scientists to communicate
There often appears to be a gulf between science and society, while the importance of science to society has never been greater. National Science Board (2014) data suggests that Americans have remained relatively positive about science in recent decades while also becoming increasingly concerned about specific technological issues such as genetic engineering and nuclear energy. Further, despite these positive views, they have continued to demonstrate limited knowledge and interest in scientific issues (Boudet et al., 2014; Gifford, 2011; Lee, Scheufele, & Lewenstein, 2005; NSB, 2010; Pew Research Center, 2008, 2015; van der Linden, Maibach, & Leiserowitz, 2015; Weber & Stern, 2011). Many of the scientific advances aimed at solving societyâs challenges (e.g., alternative energy, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, epigenetics, gene editing) raise sticky ethical, legal, and social questions, complicating and intensifying the publicâs responses to them (Dean, 2009; Leshner, 2003; Meredith, 2010; Priest, 2008). As scientific issues continue to impact the public, we likely need more quality communication between scientific experts and non-experts about these issues.
Scientists have unique access to knowledge, are seen as competent, and Americans want them to play a role in managing scientific issues (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Funk, 2017; NSB, 2012). It therefore makes sense that they also occupy a central role in science communication. We need meaningful and proactive engagement by scientists with the public, especially in conversations involving risks to health and risks to environment (Bailey, 2010; Biegelbauer & Hansen, 2011; Cicerone, 2006; Corner, Markowitz, & Pidgeon, 2014; EU, 2002; Holt, 2015; Jia & Liu, 2014; Leshner, 2007; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; NASEM, 2016a; NRC, 1989; Pidgeon & Fischhoff, 2011; The Royal Society, 1985). Scientific leaders from major scientific organizations worldwide urge their colleagues to improve their communication skills and engage with the public (Cicerone, 2006, 2010; EU, 2002; Holt, 2015; Jia & Liu, 2014; Leshner, 2003, 2007, 2015; Reddy, 2009; Rowland, 1993; Department of Science and Technology: South Africa, 2014; The Royal Society, 1985). Some assert that scientists no longer enjoy the luxury of deciding whether to communicate with the public but instead must decide how they want to communicate (Donner, 2014; Pielke, 2007). This interest in the public communication of science generates critical questions about how scientists interface with science communication and with the public: (1) How often do scientists engage with the public? (2) What are the factors leading scientists to engage with the public? (3) How do scientists think about their science communication efforts?
How often do scientists communicate?
Despite ongoing calls for more engagement, many scientists already frequently engage in public communication activities, both directly with the public and indirectly through the media (Bauer & Jensen, 2011; Besley & Nisbet, 2013; Dudo et al., 2018; Hamlyn, Shanahan, Lewsi, OâDonoghue, & Burchell, 2015; Kreimer, Levin, & Jensen, 2011; Rainie, Funk, & Anderson, 2015; Torres-Albero, Fernandez-Esquinas, Rey-Rocha, & MartĂn-Sempere, 2011; The Royal Society, 2006). Scientists also value and plan to continue these outreach efforts (Dudo, Kahlor, Abi Ghannam, Lazard, & Liang, 2014; Dudo et al., 2018; MartĂn-Sempere, GarzĂłn-Garcia, & Rey-Rocha, 2008; Peters et al., 2008a; TRS, 2006). Many scientists report they got into science to make the world a better place (Pew Research Center, 2009) and view sharing what they know with others as a professional responsibility (Gascoigne & Metcalfe, 1997) or a way to raise public interest in science (DiBella, Ferri, & Padderud, 1991; MartĂn-Sempere et al., 2008; Peters et al., 2008a; TRS, 2006). Some scientists view getting coverage for their research as being important to career advancement (Kiernan, 2003; Milkman & Berger, 2014; Phillips, Kanter, Bednarczyk, & Tastad, 1991; Rainie et al., 2015; Shema, Bar-Ilan, & Thelwall, 2014). Others identify science communication as an enjoyable activity (Corrado, Pooni, & Hartfee, 2000; Dunwoody, Brossard, & Dudo, 2009; MartĂn-Sempere et al., 2008).
New communication technologies make the public communication of science more accessible and enticing to some scientists. The online media environment transforms how scientists interact with the public (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013; Linett, Kaiser, Durant, Levenson, & Wiehe, 2014). These platforms provide individual scientists with the opportunity to share their viewpoints on scientific issues for a more democratized science, engage in dialogue with a variety of stakeholders (Delborne, Schneider, Bal, Cozzens, & Worthington, 2103; Peters, 2013), or even contribute to the science itself (Einsiedel, 2014; Owens, 2014). This has led to enthusiastic pleas to scientists to embrace the use of social media to both become champions for the voice of science and reap the benefits of a social media presence for their own research, including increasing citation rates, improving broader impacts, and enhancing professional networking (Bik & Goldstein, 2013; Darling, 2014; Liang et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2017; Van Eperen & Marincola, 2011; Wilkinson & Weitkamp, 2013).
What predicts scientistsâ willingness to engage?
To get more scientists involved in communication, we need to better understand the circumstances leading scientists to engage in public outreach. What processes underlie scientistsâ willingness to engage in high-quality public outreach activities? Much of the past research seeking to understand why scientists communicate lacked theory and relied on anecdotal evidences. Work within this theoretical framework demonstrates the empirical value of using the Theory of Planned Behavior (or the related Integrated Behavioral Model) as the theoretical framework for identifying the factors most associated with scientistsâ willingness to partake in the public communication of science. This theory describes how attitude, norms, and efficacy shape an individualâs behavioral intentions and behaviors (Ajzen, 2017; Yzer, 2012). Research suggests the frequent importance of attitudes, efficacy, and norms in predicting scientistsâ willingness to engage (Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013; Besley, Dudo, Yuan, & Lawrence, 2018; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007).
Social psychological variables
As might be expected, scientists with more positive attitudes toward engagement are more likely to conduct more engagement either when measured as a general affect toward engagement (MartĂn-Sempere et al., 2008; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007) or when measured as enjoyment (Besley et al., 2018; Dudo, 2013; Dunwoody et al., 2009). Positive attitudes toward the public may also increase scientistsâ willingness to engage; scientists who hold negative views about their expected audience are less likely to engage (Besley, 2014), although some studies found no significant relationship (Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013; Besley, Dudo, & Storcksdieck, 2015). Attitude toward engagement was a more reliable indicator than attitude toward the audience in predicting engagement, suggesting past positive experiences lead to future engagement (Besley et al., 2018). To increase scientistsâ engagement activity, it will be worthwhile to emphasize how the activity is likely to be a positive experience or emphasize the benefits of engagement.
Social influence variables (i.e., norms) might also be expected to shape scientistsâ engagement efforts. We divide this variable into descriptive norms and subjective norms (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Descriptive norms are what scientists think their colleagues are doing (i.e., do scientists think their peers are engaging in public communication?), and subjective norms â or injunctive norms â are what scientists think their colleagues expect or would support (i.e., do scientists think their peers approve public communication?). Initial studies found scientists who believe their colleagues engage are more likely to say they intend to engage (Poliakaff & Webb, 2007), whereas more recent studies with larger sample sizes have found no such relationship (Besley, 2014; Besley et al., 2018). The âSagan Effect,â named after science popularizer Carl Sagan, reflects subjective norms. Sagan suffered professional setbacks because fellow scientists thought he could not be a serious scientist while also doing science outreach (Ecklund, James, & Lincoln, 2012; Fahy, 2015; Gascoigne & Metcalfe, 1997), but despite the cultural popularity of the term âSagan Effect,â research has not consistently found those associations (Besley & Nisbet, 2013; Besley & McComas, 2014; Besley et al., 2018; Dudo et al., 2014; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007). Normative beliefs seem to be less influential than thought.
We divide efficacy variables into three beliefs: self-efficacy (scientistsâ sense of their own skill at engaging), response efficacy (scientistsâ belief engagement can have a beneficial effect), and time (scientistsâ belief that they have the time to engage, which might be understood as an element of behavioral control). Scientists who believe they can do a reasonable job at public engagement (self-efficacy) are more willing to communicate (Besley et al., 2013; Besley, 2014; Dudo et al., 2014; Dunwoody et al., 2009; Poliakoff & Webb, 2007), as are scientists who believe engagement efforts can have desired impacts (response efficacy) (Besley et al., 2013, 2018; Besley, 2014). Past studies have found perceived time pressure does not predict engagement (Poliakoff & Webb, 2007), but more recent studies found time availability matters (Besley, 2014; Besley et al., 2018; Dudo, 2013). These findings for efficacy suggest concrete steps to encourage scientists to engage by improving their skills, their beliefs about impacts, and the time they have available to communicate.
Proponents of engagement could use these variables (attitudes, norms, efficacy) to identify and recruit scientists more likely to engage. For example, they could identify scientists more likely to achieve certain communication goals (e.g., targeting geographic locations or specific expertise) or ensure we support and encourage individuals from under-represented groups. It may be strategic to figure out how to get certain individuals to engage less, discouraging scientists who are aggressive (rude or condescending) who reinforce harmful stereotypes about scientists. These drivers may also be useful in efforts to change how scientists view communication. For example, if scientists who believe they are more skilled are also more willing to engage, then we can address this variable with science communication training.
While these studies provide insight into whether an individual scientist is likely to engage with someone outside of their area of research, they focus on quantity, not quality. We cannot expect every scientist to communicate, so it is important to emphasize the quality of the communication by those who do (Pearson, 2001). Examples of scientists communicating discussed above may represent one-way communication, which is less effective than meaningful, multi-party dialogue (Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004; Grunig & Grunig, 2008). So, it is important to ask how scientists approach communication and investigate what objectives scientists include in their science communication activities.
Demographic variables
Demographic factors seem less important than social psychological factors in predicting a scientistâs willingness to engage with the public. Some research suggests older scientists are somewhat more likely to engage with the public than younger scientists (Bentley & Kyvik, 2011; Besley et al., 2013, 2015; Crettaz von Roten, 2011; Dudo et al., 2018; Kreimer et al., 2011; Kyvik, 2005; Torres-Albero et al., 2011; The Royal Society, 2006) and male scientists are somewhat more likely to engage with the public than female scientists (Besley, 2014; Besley et al., 2013, 2018; Bentley & Kyvik, 2011; Crettaz von Roten, 2011; Kreimer et al., 2011; Torres-Albero et al., 2011). Other studies found the opposite pattern or no difference at all (Besley et al., 2018; Crettaz von Roten, 2011; Dudo, 2013; Ecklund et al., 2012; Jensen, 2011. Older scientists tend to hold leadership positions with outreach expectations (Rödder, 2012), or the security of tenure affords scientists the freedom and autonomy to engage (Dudo, 2013; Dudo et al., 2014). Yet other studies suggest initial early career increases in science communication activities with engagement tapering off with age (Besley & Oh, 2013; Besley et al., 2013, 2018).
Popular opinion predicts scientists in more applied fields will communicate more, but this claim lacks evidence. Some studies suggest certain fields engage with the public more than others, e.g., social scientists (Bauer & Jensen, ...
