Toward a Model of Scientists' Public Communication Activity: The Case of Biomedical Researchers

Science Communication

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 476-501

  Dudo, Anthony ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

mass communication theory; public engagement; public perception of science; public understanding of science; quantitative analysis; science journalism; scientist's perception of public

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876991794     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547012460845     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Ajzen I.The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50:179-211.
2. Ajzen I.,Fishbein M.The handbook of attitudes. Albarrracin D.Johnson B. T.Zanna M. P., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005:173-221.
3. Armitage C. J.,Conner M.Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review.British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001;40:471-499.
4. Bakker T. P.,de Vreese C. H.Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation.Communication Research. 2011;38:451-470.
5. Bandura A.Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986:.
6. Bauer M. W.,Jensen P.The mobilization of scientists for public engagement.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:3-11.
7. Bensaude-Vincent B.A geneology of the increasing gap between science and the public.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:99-113.
8. Bentley P.,Kyvik S.Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:48-63.
9. Bodmer W.The public understanding of science. London, England: Birkbeck College; 1986:.
10. Boltanski L.,Maldidier P.Carriere Scientifique, Moral Scientifique et Vulgarisation.Social Science Information. 1970;9:99-118.
11. Bragg M.Opportunity knocks.Science. 1998;281:1138-1139.
12. Brown C. P.,Propst S. M.,Woolley M.Report: Helping researchers make the case for science.Science Communication. 2004;25:294-303.
13. Brumfiel G.Breaking the convention?.Nature. 2009;459:1050-1051.
14. Chaffee S.,Frank S.How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1996;546:48-58.
15. Cho J.,Shah D. V.,McLeod J. M.,McLeod D. M.,Scholl R. M.,Gotlieb M. R.Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects.Communication Theory. 2009;19:66-88.
16. Cicerone R.Ensuring integrity in science.Science. 2010;327:624.
17. CorradoM.PooniK.HartfeeY. (2000). The role of scientists in public debate. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/wtd003429.htm.
18. Craig J. L.,Lerner N.,Poe M.Innovation across the curriculum: Three case studies in teaching science and engineering communication.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 2008;51:280-301.
19. Crichton M.Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities.Science. 1999;283:1461-1463.
20. Crone W. C.,Dunwoody S.,Rediske R. K.,Ackerman S. A.,Zenner Petersen G. M.,Yaros R. A.Informal science education: A practicum for graduate students.Innovative Higher Education. 2011;36:291-304.
21. Davies S. R.Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public.Science Communication. 2008;29:413-434.
22. Dean C.Am I making myself clear? A scientist's guide to talking to the public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009:.
23. Dillman D. A.Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2007:.
24. Dudo A.,Brossard D.,Shanahan J.,Scheufele D. A.,Morgan M.,Signorielli N.Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science.Communication Research. 2011;38:754-777.
25. Dunwoody S.Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. Dunwoody S.Friedman S. M.Rogers C. L., ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1986:3-16.
26. Dunwoody S.,Brossard D.,Dudo A.Socialization or rewards? Prediciting U.S. scientist-media interactions.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2009;86 (2): 299-314.
27. Eveland W. P.,Scheufele D. A.Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation.Political Communication. 2000;17:215-237.
28. Fiske S. T.,Taylor S. E.Social cognition. 1991). Social cognition (2 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1991:.
29. Gascoigne T.,Metcalfe J.Incentives and impediments to scientists: Communication through the media.Science Communication. 1997;18:265-282.
30. Gerbner G.Science on television: How it affects public conceptions.Issues in Science and Technology. 1987;3:109-115.
31. Gold B. D.The Aldo Leopold Leadership Program-Training environmental scientists to be civic scientists.Science Communication. 2001;23 (1): 41-49.
32. Goodell R.The visible scientists. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1977:.
33. HamB. (2012, February19). Scientists offer passionate, innovative ways to engage the public on climate change. AAAS 2012 Annual Meeting News. Retrieved from http://news.aaas.org/2012_annual_meeting/0219science-is-not-enough-1.shtml.
34. Hartz J.,Chappell R.Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center; 1997:.
35. Higgins E. T.Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. Higgins E. T.Kruglanski A. W., ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1996:133-168.
36. Higgins E. T.,King G.Personality, cognition and social interaction. Cantor N.Kihlstrom J. F., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981:69-121.
37. Holbert R. L.,Stephenson M. T.The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2003;47:556-572.
38. Jacobson N.,Butterill D.,Goering P.Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers' engagement in knowledge transfer activities.Science Communication. 2004;25:246-259.
39. Jensen P.A statistical picture of PCST activities and their evolutions in France.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:26-36.
40. Jensen P.,Rouquier J.-B.,Kreimer P.,Croissant Y.Scientists who engage with society perform better academically.Science & Public Policy. 2008;35:527-541.
41. Kaplan D.Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. 2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:.
42. Kiernan V.Diffusion of news about research.Science Communication. 2003;21:3-13.
43. Kohut A.,Keeter S.,Doherty C.,Dimock M.Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press; 2009:.
44. Kreimer P.,Levin L.,Jensen P.PCST by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:37-47.
45. Markus H.,Zajonc R. B.The handbook of social psychology. 1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137-229). New York, NY: Random House.Lindzey G.Aronson E., ed. New York, NY: Random House; 1985:137-229.
46. Martín-Sempere M. J.,Garzón-Garcia B.,Rey-Rocha J.Scientists' motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:349-367.
47. Meredith D.Explaining Research: How to Reach Key Audiences to Advance Your Work. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010:.
48. McQuail D.Mass communication theory. 2005). Mass communication theory (5th ed.). London, England: Sage.London, England: Sage; 2005:.
49. Miller S.,Fahy D.Can Science Communication Workshops Train Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement? The ESConet Experience.Science Communication. 2009;31 (1): 116-126.
50. Mooney C.,Kirshenbaum S.Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2009:.
51. Morgan M.,Shanahan J.,Signorielli N.Media effects: Advances in theories and research. 2009). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theories and research (3 ed., pp. 34-49). New York, NY: Routledge.Bryant J.Oliver M. B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:34-49.
52. National Science Board. (2010). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm.
53. Neresini F.,Bucchi M.Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:64-79.
54. Nisbet M. C.,Scheufele D. A.,Shanahan J.,Moy P.,Brossard D.,Lewenstein B. V.Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology.Communication Research. 2002;29 (5): 584-608.
55. Pearson G.Participation of scientists in public understanding of science activities: The policy and practice of the U.K. Research Councils.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:121-137.
56. Pearson G.,Pringle S. M.,Thomas J. N.Scientists and the public understanding of science.Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6:279-289.
57. Peters H. P.,Brossard D.,de Cheveigne S.,Dunwoody S.,Kallfass M.,Miller S.,Tsuchida S.Interactions with the mass media.Science. 2008a;321:204-205.
58. Peters H. P.,Brossard D.,de Cheveigne S.,Dunwoody S.,Kallfass M.,Miller S.,Tsuchida S.Science-media interface: It's time to reconsider.Science Communication. 2008b;30:266-276.
59. Peters H. P.,Heinrichs H.,Jung A.,Kallfass M.,Petersen I.Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Cheng D.Claessens M.Gascoigne T.Metcalfe J.Schiele B.Shunke S., ed. Dordecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2008:71-92.
60. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2008a, August, 17). Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences new blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf.
61. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2008b). The state of the news media: An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2008/index.php.
62. Phillips D. P.,Kanter E. J.,Bednarczyk B.,Tastad P. L.Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community.New England Journal of Medicine. 1991;325:1180-1183.
63. Poliakoff E.,Webb T. L.What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?.Science Communication. 2007;29:242-263.
64. Priest S.What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. David K.Thompson P. B., ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2008:221-234.
65. Reddy C.Scientist citizens.Science. 2009 1405;323:.
66. Royal Society. (2006). Factors affecting science communication: A survey of scientists and engineers. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3180.
67. Shrum L. J.Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Bryant J.Oliver M. B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:50-73.
68. Torres-Albero C.,Fernández-Esquinas M.,Rey-Rocha J.,Martín-Sempere M. J.Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20:12-25.
69. Tsfati Y.,Cohen J.,Gunther A. C.The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists.Science Communication. 2011;33:143-166.
70. Weingart P.Science and the media.Research Policy. 1998;27:869-879.
71. Weinstein N. D.,Klein W. M.Unrealistic optimism: Present and future.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1996;15:1-8.
72. Willems J.,Woudstra E.The use by biologists and engineers of non-specialist information sources and its relation to their social involvement.Scientometrics. 1993;28:205-216.
73. Wyer R. S.,Srull T. K.Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception. Hastie R.Ostrom T. M.Ebbessen E. B.Wyer R. S.Hamilton D. L.Carlston D. E., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1980:227-300.