Predicting scientists' participation in public life

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 971-987

  Besley, John C ^a   Oh, Sang Hwa ^b   Nisbet, Matthew ^c  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

media engagement; public engagement; science communication; scientists' understanding of the public

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886014091     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512459315     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ajzen I.The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50 (2): 179-211.
2. Barber BRStrong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1984:.
3. Bauer MW,Jensen P.The mobilization of scientists for public engagement.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (1): 3-11.
4. Bauer MW,Allum N,Miller S.What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 79-95.
5. Baumgartner J,Morris JS.The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth.American Politics Research. 2006;34 (3): 341-367.
6. Beierle TC,Cayford JDemocracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2002:.
7. Bentley P,Kyvik S.Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (1): 48-63.
8. Besley JC.Media exposure and core values.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 2008;85 (2): 311-330.
9. Besley JC,Nisbet MC.How scientists view the public, the media and the political process.Public Understanding of Science. in press;:.
10. Besley JC,Roberts MC.Qualitative interviews with journalists about deliberative public engagement.Journalism Practice. 2010;4 (1): 66-81.
11. Besley JC,Tanner AH.What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate.Science Communication. 2011;33 (2): 239-263.
12. Blok A,Jensen M,Kaltoft P.Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (2): 189-209.
13. Burchell K.Empiricist selves and contingent "others": The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (2): 145-162.
14. Burningham K,Barnett J,Carr A,Clift R,Wehrmeyer W.Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 23-43.
15. Cohen J,Cohen P,West SG,Aiken LSApplied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003:.
16. Conner M,Armitage CJ.Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1998;28 (15): 1429-1464.
17. Cook G,Pieri E,Robbins PT."The scientists think and the public feels": Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food.Discourse & Society. 2004;15 (4): 433-449.
18. Davies SR.Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public.Science Communication. 2008;29 (4): 413-434.
19. De Boer M,McCarthy M,Brennan M,Kelly AL,Ritson C.Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the Island of Ireland: The views of food safety experts.Journal of Food Safety. 2005;25 (4): 241-265.
20. Delli Carpini MXHandbook of Political Communication Research. Kaid LL, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004:395-434.
21. Delli Carpini MX,Cook FL,Jacobs LR.Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature.Annual Review of Political Science. 2004;7:315-344.
22. DeVellis RFScale Development: Theory and Applications. 2003) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003:.
23. Fischhoff B.Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process.Risk Analysis. 1995;2:137-144.
24. Gamble J,Kassardjian E.The use of selected community groups to elicit and understand the values underlying attitudes towards biotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (2): 245-259.
25. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-first Century. Gastil JLevine P, ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2005:.
26. Holbert RL.Political talk radio, perceived fairness, and the establishment of president George W. Bush's political legitimacy.Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics. 2004;9 (3): 12-27.
27. Jensen P.A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (1): 26-36.
28. Krystallis A,Frewer L,Rowe G,Houghton J,Kehagia O,Perrea T.A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe.Health, Risk & Society. 2007;9 (4): 407-424.
29. Lapinski MK,Rimal RN,DeVries R,Lee EL.The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors.Health Communication. 2007;22 (2): 133-142.
30. Levy-Leblond J-M.About misunderstandings about misunderstandings.Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1 (1): 17-21.
31. Maranta A,Guggenheim M,Gisler P,Pohl C.The reality of experts and the imagined lay person.Acta Sociologica. 2003;46 (2): 150-165.
32. Michael M,Brown N.From the representation of publics to the performance of "lay political science".Social Epistemology. 2000;14 (1): 3-19.
33. Moore A,Stilgoe J.Experts and anecdotes: The role of "anecdotal evidence" in public scientific controversies.Science, Technology and Human Values. 2009;34 (5): 654-677.
34. Moy P,Scheufele DA.Media effects on political and social trust.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 2000;77 (4): 744-759.
35. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2008:.
36. 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 (1): 64-79.
37. Nisbet MC,Kotcher JE.A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change.Science Communication. 2009;30 (3): 328-354.
38. Nisbet MC,Scheufele DA.What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.American Journal of Botany. 2009;96 (10): 1767-1778.
39. Norris PA Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000:.
40. Page BIWho Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1996:.
41. Pearson G,Pringle SM,Thomas JN.Scientists and the public understanding of science.Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6 (3): 279-289.
42. Peters HP,Brossard D,de Cheveigne S,Dunwoody S,Kallfass M,Miller S,Tsuchida S.Science communication: Interactions with the mass media.Science. 2008;321 (5886): 204-205.
43. Petersen A,Anderson A,Allan S,Wilkinson C.Opening the black box: Scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 512-530.
44. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. July9. Available at (accessed October 16, 2011): http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf.
45. Poliakoff E,Webb TL.What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?.Science Communication. 2007;29 (2): 242-263.
46. Putnam RDBowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 2000:.
47. Rosenstone SJ,Hansen JMMobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1993:.
48. Royal Society (2006) Science Communication: Excellence in Science. Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: The Royal Society. Available at (accessed October 16, 2011): http://royalsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=5232.
49. Scheufele DA,Nisbet MC,Brossard D.Pathways to political participation? Religion, communication contexts, and mass media.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2003;15 (3): 300-324.
50. Stilgoe J.The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (1): 45-61.
51. Sturgis P,Allum N.Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:55-74.
52. Torres-Albero C,Fernandez-Esquinas M,Rey-Rocha J,Martin-Sempere MJ.Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (1): 12-25.
53. Trumbo CW,O'Keefe GJ.Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharing a watershed.Society & Natural Resources. 2001;14 (10): 889-899.
54. Uslaner EM.Social capital, television, and the "mean world": Trust, optimism, and civic participation.Political Psychology. 1998;19 (3): 441-467.
55. Verba S,Schlozman KL,Brady HEVoice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995:.
56. Weaver DHThe American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007:.
57. Xenos M.New mediated deliberation: Blog and press coverage of the Alito nomination.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008;13 (1): 485-503.
58. Young N,Matthews R.Experts' understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16 (2): 123-144.