Scientists' prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Dudo, Anthony ^a   Besley, John C ^b  

^a The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; JUSTICE; LEADERSHIP; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCIENTIST; THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR; TRUST; ATTITUDE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MOTIVATION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SCIENCE;

ATTITUDE; COMMUNICATION; GOALS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SCIENCE;

EID: 84979075777     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Cicerone R. Ensuring integrity in science. Science. 2010; 327(5966): 624. doi: 10.1126/science.1187612 PMID: 20133539
2. Ham B. Scientists offer passionate, innovative ways to engage the public on climate change. AAAS 2012 Annual Meeting News. 2012 February 19, 2012.
3. Leshner AI. Public engagement with Science. Science. 2003; 299(5609): 977. PMID: 12586907
4. Leshner AI. Bridging the opinion gap. Science. 2015; 347(6221): 459. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa7477 PMID: 25635062
5. Reddy C. Scientist citizens. Science. 2009; 323(5929): 1405.
6. Bauer MW, Jensen P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science. 2011; 20(1): 3-11.
7. Besley JC, Oh SH, Nisbet M. Predicting scientists' participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science. 2013; 22(8): 971-87. doi: 10.1177/0963662512459315 PMID: 23825262
8. Dudo A. Toward a model of scientists' public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication. 2013; 35(4): 476-501.
9. Peters HP. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013; 110(Supplement 3): 14102-14109.
10. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991; 50:179-211.
11. Lind EA, Tyler TR. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media; 1988.
12. Cicerone R. Celebrating and rethinking science communication. The National Academy of Science - In Focus. 2006:1-2.
13. Durant J. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy. 1999; 26(5): 313-9.
14. Verba S, Schlozman KL, Brady HE. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995.
15. Dudo A, Kahlor L, AbiGhannam N, Lazard A, Liang M-C. An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology. 2014; 9(10): 841-844. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2014.194 PMID: 25218326
16. Marcinkowski F, Kohring M, Fürst S, Friedrichsmeier A. Organizational influence on scientists' efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication. 2014; 36(1): 56-80.
17. Poliakoff E, Webb TL. What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication. 2007; 29(2): 242-63.
18. Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Dudo A. Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2009; 86(2): 299-314.
19. Kreimer P, Levin L, Jensen P. Popularization by Argentine researchers: the activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science. 2011; 20(1): 37-47.
20. Jensen P. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science. 2011; 20(1): 26-36.
21. 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.
22. Logan RA. Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication. 2001; 23(2): 135-63.
23. Besley JC, Nisbet M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science. 2011; 22(6): 644-59. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743 PMID: 23885050
24. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research. 2011; 14(2): 147-74.
25. McComas KA, Besley JC. Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Analysis. 2011; 31(11): 1749-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01676.x PMID: 21883336
26. Brossard D, Nisbet MC. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2007; 19(1): 24-52.
27. McComas KA, Arvai JL, Besley JC. Linking public participation and decision making through risk communication. In: Heath RL, O'Hair DH, editors. Handbook of crisis and risk communication. New York: Routledge; 2009. pp. 364-385.
28. Gutmann A, Thompson D. Why deliberative democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004.
29. Grunig J, Repper F. Strategic management, publics, and issues. In: Grunig J, editor. Excellence in public relations and communication management, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1992. pp. 117-158.
30. Pew Research Center. Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. 2009 [cited 2015 Jan 3]. Available: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/.
31. The Royal Society. Factors affecting science communication: A survey of scientists and engineers: The Royal Society; 2006 [cited 2015 Jan 3]. Available: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal-Society-Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf.
32. National Academy of Sciences. Public interfaces of the life sciences. 2013 [cited 2013 Nov 6]. Available: http://nas-sites.org/publicinterfaces/.
33. Rice RE, Atkin CK. Public communication campaigns. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.
34. National Research Council. Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2008.
35. Burkhalter S, Gastil J, Kelshaw T. A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory. 2002; 12(4): 398-422.
36. Webler T, Tuler S. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Studies Journal.2006; 34(4): 699-722.
37. Heath RL, Ni L. Community relations and corporate social responsibility. In: Heath RL, O'Hair DH, editors. Handbook of risk and crisis communication. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 557-568.
38. Bies RJ. Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct. In: Greenberg J, & Colquitt JA, editors. Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. pp. 59-85.
39. Lauber TB. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society & Natural Resources. 1999; 12(1): 19-37.
40. Webler T. Why risk communicators should care about the fairness and competence of their public engagement processes. In: Arvai JL, Rivers L, editors. Effective risk communication. Earthscan; 2013. pp. 124-141.
41. Maibach E, Parrott R. Designing health messages: Approaches from communication theory and public health practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
42. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 2009; 4(2): 87-90. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 PMID: 19197308
43. Ho S, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2008; 20(2): 171-192.
44. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. What's next for science communication: Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany. 2009; 96(10): 1767-78. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041 PMID: 21622297
45. Holland E. The risks and advantages of framing science. Science, 317(5842), 1168-1170. doi: 10.1126/science.317.5842.1168b
46. Carsten LD, Illman DL. Perceptions of accuracy in science writing. Ieee Transactions on Professional Communication. 2002; 45(3): 153-6.
47. Dunwoody S. A question of accuracy. Ieee Transactions on Professional Communication. 1982; 25:196-9.
48. Nelkin D. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman; 1995.
49. Barrett S. Quackwatch mission statement. 2013. Available: http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html.
50. Franken A. Lies and the lying liars who tell them: A fair and balanced look at the right. New York: Penguin Group; 2004.
51. Brooks DJ, Geer JG. Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science. 2007; 51(1): 1-16.
52. Mutz DC, Reeves B. The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review. 2005; 99(01): 1-15.
53. Thorson K, Vraga E, Ekdale B. Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society. 2010; 13(3): 289-313.
54. 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): 133-42. PMID: 17668993
55. Einsiedel EF. Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science. 2002; 11(4): 315-31.
56. Colquitt JA, Greenberg J, Zapata-Phelan CP. What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In: Greenberg J, Colquitt JA, editors. Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. pp. 3-58.
57. Nisbet M. Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In: Kahlor LA, Stout PA, editors. Communicating science: New agendas in communication. Routledge; 2009. pp. 40-67.
58. National Science Board. Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding (Chapter 7). Science and Engineering Indicators. 2014. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/.
59. Carpini MXD, Cook FL, Jacobs LR. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2004; 7: 315-344.
60. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, mail, & mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 3ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2008.
61. Scott A, Jeon S-H, Joyce CM, Humphreys JS, Kalb G, Witt J, et al. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC medical research methodology. 2011; 11(1): 126.
62. Craig JL, Lerner N, Poe M. Innovation across the curriculum: Three case studies in teaching science and engineering communication. Ieee Transactions on Professional Communication. 2008; 51(3): 280-301.
63. Crone WC, Dunwoody S, Rediske RK, Ackerman SA, Zenner Petersen GM, Yaros RA. Informal science education: A practicum for graduate students. Innovative Higher Education. 2011; 36(5).
64. Revkin A. A climate change scientist who engages skeptics. 2009. [cited 2015 Jan 3] Available: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/.
65. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. 1st ed. New York: Bloomsbury Press; 2010.
66. Specter M. Denialism: How irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives. New York: Penguin Press; 2009.
67. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change. 2012; 113(3-4): 1105-1112. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-05136
68. Druckman JN, Bolsen T. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication. 2011; 61(4): 659-88.
69. Fiske ST, Dupree C, Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014; 111(Supplement 4): 13593-13597.
70. Brossard D. New media landscapes and the science information consumer. PNAS; 110(Supplement 3):14096-14101. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212744110
71. Brossard D, Scheufele DS. Science, new media, and the public. Science; 4: 40-41.
72. Peters H P, Dunwoody S, Allgaier J, Lo YY. Brossard D. Public communication of science 2.0. Embo Reports. 2014; 15(7): 749-753. doi: 10.15252/embr.201438979 PMID: 24920610
73. Public Interfaces of the Life Sciences Initiative. Sustainable infrastructures for life science communication: A workshop. 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 3]. Available: http://nas-sites.org/publicinterfaces/.
74. COMPASSonline. GradSciComm workshop summary. 2013 [cited 2014 January 3]. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/191901955/GradSciComm-Workshop-Summary.