Qualitative Interviews With Science Communication Trainers About Communication Objectives and Goals

Science Communication

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 356-381

  Besley, John C ^a   Dudo, Anthony D ^b   Yuan, Shupei ^a   Abi Ghannam, Niveen ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

goals; objectives; qualitative interviews; scientists perception of the public; training

Indexed keywords

EID: 84968593318     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547016645640     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. N.C.AllumP.SturgisD.TabouraziI.Brunton-Smith (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35-54. doi:10.1077/0963662506070159
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2015). Center for public engagement with science and technology. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/
3. The Banff Center. (2015). Science communications 2015. Retrieved from http://www.banffcentre.ca/programs/program.aspx?id=1243
4. A.Baram-TsabariB.V.Lewenstein (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35, 56-85. doi:10.1177/1075547012440634
5. M.W.BauerN.AllumS.Miller (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287
6. J.C.Besley (2015). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy, 42, 201-214. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042
7. J.C.BesleyA.DudoM.Storksdieck (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186
8. J.C.BesleyM.C.Nisbet (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743
9. J.C.BesleyS.H.OhM.C.Nisbet (2013). Predicting scientist’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 971-987. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315
10. J.C.BesleyA.H.Tanner (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33, 239-263. doi:10.1177/1075547010386972
11. A.BlokM.JensenP.Kaltoft (2008). Social identities and risk: Expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 189-209. doi:10.1077/0963662506070176
12. W.Bodmer (1985). The public understanding of science. Paper presented at the The 17th J.D. Bernal Lecture, Birkbeck College, London.
13. G.M.BroomD.M.Dozier (1986). Advancement for public relations role models. Public Relations Review, 12(1), 37-56. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(86)80039-X
14. G.M.BroomG.D.Smith (1979). Testing the practitioner’s impact on clients. Public Relations Review, 5(3), 47-59. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(79)80027-2
15. R.Cicerone (2010). Ensuring integrity in science. Science, 327(5966), 624.
16. S.R.Davies (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29, 413-434. doi:10.1177/1075547009316222
17. M.X.Delli CarpiniF.L.CookL.R.Jacobs. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
18. D.M.DozierG.M.Broom (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3-26. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0701_02
19. D.M.DozierW.P.Ehling (1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us about their effects. In (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. A.D.DudoL.KahlorN.AbiGhannamA.LazardM.-C.Liang (2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 841-844. doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.194
21. S.DunwoodyD.BrossardA.D.Dudo (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 299-314. doi:10.1177/107769900908600203
22. B.Fischhoff (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 2, 137-144. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x
23. S.T.FiskeC.Dupree (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593-13597. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317505111
24. J.GrunigT.Hunt (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25. J.E.GrunigL.A.Grunig (1989). Toward a theory of public relations behavior in organizations: Reviewof a program of researcb. In (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. I, pp. 27-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. G.GuestK.M.MacQueenE.E.Namey (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
27. J.E.HockingS.McDermottD.W.Stacks (2003). Communication research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
28. P.A.Holmes (1996, April18). Evaluation: What is more important than who. Inside PR, p. 2.
29. L.C.Hon (1998). Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 103-135. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1002_02
30. L.C.HonJ.E.Grunig (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/measuring-relationships/
31. S.S.HoD.BrossardD.A.Scheufele (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171-192. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017
32. D.M.KahanD.BramanP.SlovicJ.GastilG.Cohen (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.341
33. L.A.KahlorA.DudoM.-C.LiangN.AbiGhannam (2015). What are you saying? Challenges and opportunities for increasing visibility and understanding of indoor microbiological research. Indoor and Built Environment, 24, 682-688. doi:10.1177/1420326X14531000
34. D.KatzR.L.Kahn (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
35. R.Kendall (1996). Public relations campaigns strategies: Planning for implementation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
36. B.KovachT.Rosenstiel (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (Rev. updated 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
37. A.I.Leshner (2006). Science and public engagement. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/SciencePublic-Engagement/25084
38. A.I.Leshner (2015). Bridging the opinion gap. Science, 347(6221), 459. doi:10.1126/science.aaa7477
39. E.A.LockeG.P.Latham (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40. E.A.LockeG.P.Latham (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705
41. E.A.LockeG.P.Latham (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x
42. R.A.Logan (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135-163. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002004
43. A.MarantaM.GuggenheimP.GislerC.Pohl (2003). The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociologica, 46, 150-165. doi:10.1177/0001699303046002005
44. E.McCallieL.BellT.LohwaterJ.H.FalkJ.L.LehrB.V.LewensteinB.. Wiehe (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/eth_fac/12/
45. M.B.MilesA.M.Huberman (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. S.MillerD.Fahy., & The ESConet Team. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31, 116-126. doi:10.1177/1075547009339048
47. J.M.Morse (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In (Eds.), Handbook for qualitative research (pp. 220–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. J.Napolitano (2015). Why more scientists are needed in the public square. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/why-more-scientists-are-needed-in-the-public-square-46451
49. National Academy of Sciences. (2012). The science of science communication. Retrieved from http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/science-communication.html
50. National Academy of Sciences. (2013). The science of science communication II. Retrieved from http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/agenda-science-communication-II.html
51. National Research Council. (Ed.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
52. E.NeeleyE.Goldman (2013). #GradSciComm: Rolling up our sleeves. COMPASS Online. Retrieved from http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/12/03/gradscicomm-rolling-up-our-sleeves/
53. M.C.Nisbet (2010). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40-67). New York, NY: Routledge.
54. M.C.Nisbet (2015). Framing, the media, and risk communication in policy debates. In (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication (pp. 216-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55. M.C.NisbetD.A.Scheufele (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041
56. H.P.PetersD.BrossardS.de CheveigneS.DunwoodyM.KallfassS.MillerS.Tsuchida (2008). Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204-205. doi:10.1126/science.1157780
57. G.Pinholster (2015). AAAS unveils Alan I. Leshner Leadership Institute. American Association for the Advancement of Science Newsroom. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-unveils-alan-i-leshner-leadership-institute
58. R.A.SalmonR.K.PriestleyJ.Goven (2015). The reflexive scientist: An approach to transforming public engagement. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0274-4
59. B.SmithN.BaronC.EnglishH.GalindoE.GoldmanK.McLeodE.. Neeley (2013). COMPASS: Navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001552. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001552
60. A.StraussJ.Corbin (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. B.TrenchS.Miller (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39, 722-731. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs090
62. B.van Ruler. (2004). The communication grid: An introduction of a model of four communication strategies. Public Relations Review, 30, 123-143. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.01.002