What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 201-214

  Besley, John C ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Efficacy; Fairness; Public engagement; Scientists' perception of the public; Social norms; Survey research

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; INTERNET; PERCEPTION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SURVEY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84926466101     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scu042     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991) 'The theory of planned behavior', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50:179-211.
2. Ajzen, I. (2013) 'Icek Ajzen: Theory of Planned Behavior', accessed 29 May 2013.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2013) 'Center for Public Engagement with Science & Technology', accessed 12 March 2013.
4. Banff Center. (2012) 'Science Communications: 2012', accessed 10 July 2012.
5. Baram-Tsabari, A. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2013) 'An instrument for assessing scientists' written skills in public communication of science', Science Communication, 35: 56-85.
6. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N. and Miller, S. (2007) 'What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda', Public Understanding of Science, 16:79-95.
7. Baumgartner, J. and Morris, J. S. (2006) 'The Daily Show effect:Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth', American Politics Research, 34: 341-67.
8. Besley, J. C. (2010) 'Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance', Science Communication, 32: 256-80.
9. Besley, J. C. and Nisbet, M. C. (2013) 'How scientists view the public, the media and the political process', Public Understanding of Science, 22: 644-59.
10. Besley, J. C. Oh, S. H. and Nisbet, M. C. (2013) 'Predicting scientist' participation in public life', Public Understanding of Science, 22: 971-87.
11. Blok, A., Jensen, M. and Kaltoft, P. (2008) 'Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use', Public Understanding of Science, 17: 189-209.
12. Bozeman, B. and Boardman, C. (2009) 'Broad impacts and narrow perspectives: Passing the buck on science and social impacts', Social Epistemology, 23: 183-98.
13. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. and Aiken, L. S. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J. and Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005) 'What is organizational justice? A historical overview'. In: Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. A. (eds) Handbook of Organizational Justice, pp. 3-58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Colquitt, J. A., and Shaw, J. C. (2005) 'How should organizational justice be measured?'. In: Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J. A. (eds) Handbook of Organizational Justice, pp. 113-52. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. COMPASSonline. (2014) 'GradSciComm Workshop Summary', accessed 3 January 2014.
17. Davies, S. R. (2008) 'Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public', Science Communication, 29: 413-34.
18. Davies, S. R. (2013a) 'Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies', Science Communication, 35: 687-707.
19. Davies, S. R. (2013b) 'Research staff and public engagement: A UK study', Higher Education, 66: 725-39.
20. Dean, C. (2009) Am I Making Myself Clear?: A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Delborne, J. A., Bal, R., Cozzens, S., Schneider, J. and Worthington, R. (2013) 'Policy pathways, policy networks, and citizen deliberation: Disseminating the results of World Wide Views on Global Warming in the USA', Science and Public Policy, 40: 378-92.
22. Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004) 'Mediating democratic engagement:The impact of communications and citizens' involvement in political and civic life'. In: Kaid, L. L. (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research, pp. 395-434. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Dudo, A. D. (2013) 'Toward a model of scientists' public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers', Science Communication, 35: 476-501.
24. Durant, J. (1999) 'Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of public understanding of science', Science and Public Policy, 26: 313-19.
25. Durant, J. (2013) 'The role of science festivals', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110/8: 2681.
26. Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A. and Lincoln, A. E. (2012) 'How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach', PLoS ONE, 7/5: e36240.
27. Einsiedel, E. F. and Eastlick, D. L. (2000) 'Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective', Science Communication, 21: 323-43.
28. Environmental Health Sciences. (2013) 'Science Communication Fellows', accessed 12 March 2013.
29. Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L. and Sweetser, K. D. (2008) 'PR practitioners' use of social media tools and communication technology', Public Relations Review, 34: 412-14.
30. Gascoigne, T. and Metcalfe, J. (1997) 'Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media', Science Communication, 18: 265-82.
31. Gibbons, M. C. et al. (2011) 'Exploring the potential of web 2.0 to address health disparities', Journal of Health Communication, 16(sup1), 77-89.
32. Glynn, C. J., Huge, M. E. and Lunney, C. A. (2009) 'The influence of perceived social norms on college students' intention to vote', Political Communication, 26: 48-64.
33. Grunig, J. and Repper, F. (1992) 'Strategic management, publics, and issues'. In: Grunig, J. (ed.) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, pp. 117-58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Gunther, A. C. and Liebhart, J. L. (2006) 'Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect', Journal of Communication, 56: 449-66.
35. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36. Hamlett, P., Cobb, M. D. and Guston, D. H. (2013) 'National Citizens' Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement'. In: Hays, S. A., Robert, J. S., Miller, C. A. and Bennett, I. (eds) Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future, pp. 265-83. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
37. Jensen, E. and Buckley, N. (2014) 'Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research', Public Understanding of Science, 23: 557-73.
38. Johnson, D. R., Ecklund, E. H. and Lincoln, A. E. (2014) 'Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science', Science Communication, 36: 81-105.
39. Kahan, D. M. (2013) '"Public comprehension of science-believe it or not!": The public and decision-relevant science', The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, accessed 11 November 2013.
40. Lapinski, M. K. and Rimal, R. N. (2005) 'An explication of social norms', Communication Theory, 15: 127-47.
41. Lapinski, M. K. and Rimal, R. N. DeVries, R. and Lee, E. L. (2007) 'The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors', Health Communication, 22:133-42.
42. Leshner, A. I. (2006) 'Science and public engagement', The Chronicle Review, 53(8): B20.
43. Levy-Leblond, J.-M. (1992) 'About misunderstandings about misunderstandings', Public Understanding of Science, 1:17-21.
44. McComas, K. A. (2001) 'Theory and practice of public meetings', Communication Theory, 11: 36-55.
45. McComas, K. A. Arvai, J. L. and Besley, J. C. (2009) 'Linking public participation and decision making through risk communication'. In: Heath, R. L. and O'Hair, D. H. (eds) Handbook of Crisis and Risk Communication, pp. 364-85. New York: Routledge.
46. Maranta, A., Guggenheim, M., Gisler, P. and Pohl, C. (2003) 'The reality of experts and the imagined lay person', Acta Sociologica, 46: 150-65.
47. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S. and Friedrichsmeier, A. (2013) 'Organizational influence on scientists' efforts to go public: An empirical investigation', Science Communication, 36: 56-80.
48. Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B. and Rey-Rocha, J. (2008) 'Scientists' motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair', Public Understanding of Science, 17:349-67.
49. Miller, S., Fahy, D. and the ESConet Team. (2009) 'Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience'. Science Communication, 31: 116-26.
50. Mooney, C. (2010) 'Do scientists want (or need) media training', Discover Magazine, accessed 10 July 2012.
51. Moore, A. and Stilgoe, J. (2009) 'Experts and anecdotes: The role of "anecdotal evidence" in public scientific controversies', Science Technology and Human Values, 34: 654-77.
52. MORI/The Wellcome Trust. (2001) 'The role of scientists in public debate', accessed 2 July 2014.
53. Moy, P. and Scheufele, D. A. (2000) 'Media effects on political and social trust', Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77: 744-59.
54. National Academy of Sciences. (2013) 'Public interfaces of the life sciences', accessed 6 November 2013.
55. National Science Board. (2012) 'Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding (Chapter 7)', Science and Engineering Indicators, accessed 18 July 2012.
56. Nisbet, M. C. (2013) 'Big Think: Age of Engagement', accessed 22 August 2013.
57. Olson, R. (2009) Don't be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Washington, DC: Island Press.
58. Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S. et al. (2008) 'Science-media interface: It's time to reconsider', Science Communication, 30: 266-76.
59. Pew Research Center. (2009) 'Public praises science; scientists fault public, media', accessed 16 October 2011.
60. Poliakoff, E. and Webb, T. L. (2007) 'What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?', Science Communication, 29: 242-63.
61. Riesch, H. and Mendel, J. (2014) 'Science blogging: Networks, boundaries and limitations', Science as Culture, 23: 51-72.
62. Roberts, M. R. (2009) 'Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation's broader impacts criterion', Social Epistemology, 23: 199-219.
63. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2005) 'A typology of public engagement mechanisms', Science Technology and Human Values, 30: 251-90.
64. Royal Society. (1985) 'The Public Understanding of Science ("The Bodmer Report"). London: Royal Society.
65. Royal Society. (2006) 'Factors affecting science communication: A survey of scientists and engineers', accessed 16 October 2011.
66. Schneider, D. J. (2004) The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.
67. Shanahan, M.-C. (2011) 'Science blogs as boundary layers:Creating and understanding new writer and reader interactions through science blogging', Journalism, 12: 903-19.
68. Society for Risk Analysis. (2011) 'SRA 2011 Annual Meeting:Information on Workshops', accessed 10 July 2012.
69. Spanier, G. B. (2011) 'Renewing the covenant: Ten years after the Kellogg Commission' Journal of Higher Education Outreach and and Engagement, 15/3: 9-14.
70. Specter, M. (2009) Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens our Lives. New York: Penguin.
71. Stilgoe, J. (2007) 'The (co-)production of public uncertainty:UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks', Public Understanding of Science, 16: 45-61.
72. Street, R. L., Gordon, H. and Haidet, P. (2007) 'Physicians' communication and perceptions of patients: Is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?', Social Science and Medicine, 65: 586-98.
73. Sturzenegger-Varvayanis, S., Eosco, G., Ball, S., Lee, K., Halpern, M. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2008) 'How university scientists view science communication to the public', Proceedings de la conférence PCST-10, Malmö, 25-7.
74. Torres-Albero, C., Fernández-Esquinas, M., Rey-Rocha, J. and Martín-Sempere, M. J. (2011) 'Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage', Public Understanding of Science, 20: 12-25.
75. Trench, B. and Miller, S. (2012) 'Policies and practices in supporting scientists' public communication through training', Science and Public Policy, 39: 722-31.
76. Trumbo, C. W. and O'Keefe, G. J. (2001) 'Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharing a watershed', Society and Natural Resources, 14: 889-99.
77. Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J. and Gunther, A. C. (2011) 'The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists', Science Communication, 33: 143-66.
78. Visschers, V. H. M. and Siegrist, M. (2012) 'Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants', Energy Policy, 46: 292-300.
79. Webb, A. B., Fetsch, C. R., Israel, E., Roman, C. M. et al. (2012) 'Training scientists in a science center improves science communication to the public', Advances in Physiology Education, 36: 72-6.
80. Wilkins, J. S. (2008) 'The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs', Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23: 411-3.
81. Yang, Z. J., McComas, K. A., Gay, G., Leonard, J. P. et al. (2010) 'Applying the theory of planned behavior to study health decisions related to potential risks', Journal of Risk Research, 13: 1007-26.