This Michigan State University and University of Texas-Austin project will focus on making science communication more scientific. It will primarily use interview and survey research to improve societal understanding of how those involved in science communication, particularly scientists, think about science communication. The goal is to use this knowledge to help improve science communication training and recruiting with a focus on increasing the likelihood that scientists will adopt evidence-based communication strategies to increase public interest, engagement, and identification with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). A central underlying reason for the study is a mismatch between scientists' motivations and goals when interacting with public audiences and what research suggests would be the most positive and productive with public audiences. This study is funded by the Advancing Informal STEM Learning program, which seeks to advance new approaches to, and evidence-based understanding of, the design and development of STEM learning in informal environments. This includes providing multiple pathways for broadening access to and engagement in STEM learning experiences, advancing innovative research on and assessment of STEM learning in informal environments, and developing understandings of deeper learning by participants. The project will be conducted in three phases. The first is interviews with a wide range of science communication experts to assess priority research questions. These interviews will be followed by surveys with U.S.-based members of up to 10 different scientific societies representing a broad range of academic fields as well as a survey of science communication researchers. The survey will focus on three different public engagement modes, including face-to-face engagement, online engagement, and engagement via the news media. Consistent with the Theory of Planned Behavior, the surveys will assess scientists' attitudes about public engagement and specific public engagement goals, as well as perceptions of social norms (both descriptive and injunctive) and efficacy beliefs (both internal and external). These will be used as predictors of general and goal-specific engagement willingness, as well as reported past behavior, using multigroup modeling. Potential communication goals of interest include transferring knowledge, developing interest and excitement, building trust in scientists, demonstrating openness and a willingness to listen, shaping how people think about subjects (i.e. framing), and/or defending science. The final phase of the project will explore the potential to design experiments aimed at testing the impact that mention of specific goals has on communication training recruitment as well as the degree to which online content about various goals is attractive to scientists interested in developing their communication skills. The research is the most targeted and largest attempt to date to understand how scientists' views about the public and communication processes may shape science communication behavior.
Dahlstrom and Ho offer advice on using narrative to communicate about science. They conclude that the rhetorical purpose of the narrative should be thoroughly examined so as not to unfairly influence a reader or listener.
This poster was presented at the 2014 AISL PI Meeting. It describes a project that creates experiences in herpetology (the study of reptiles and amphibians) for rural underrepresented groups.
This poster was presented at the 2014 AISL PI Meeting in Washington, DC. This project seeks to improve public engagement in climate communication by broadcast meteorologists, using scientific methods to identify probable causes for their skepticism and/or reticence, and to test the efficacy of proposed solutions.
This poster was presented at the 2014 AISL PI Meeting in Washington, DC. It describes a project that creates incubators composed of community members to foster innovative solutions to regional challenges.
In this review paper, Oliver calls for greater cross-pollination between neuroscience research and educational practice. She asks, “What can educators learn from an understanding of educational neuroscience?”
Learning to see inequity in science is critical to anyone who is actively encouraging young people to invest their education, career, and life in the discipline. If the culture of science is grossly inequitable, why should students take the risk of entering this discipline over careers in other arenas? Many scholarly publications from the fields of psychology, science education, and sociology have described inequities in science; proposed theoretical frameworks for understanding them; and explored practical strategies for addressing such inequities, but progress in jettisoning these inequities
There is a growing call for greater public involvement in establishing science and technology policy, in line with democratic ideals. A variety of public participation procedures exist that aim to consult and involve the public, ranging from the public hearing to the consensus conference. Unfortunately, a general lack of empirical consideration of the quality of these methods arises from confusion as to the appropriate benchmarks for evaluation. Given that the quality of the output of any participation exercise is difficult to determine, the authors suggest the need to consider which aspects
In the past five years, informal science institutions (ISIs), science communication, advocacy and citizen action groups, funding organizations, and policy-makers in the UK and the USA have become increasingly involved in efforts to promote increased public engagement with science and technology (PEST). Such engagement is described as taking place within the context of a “new mood for dialogue” between scientific and technical experts and the public. Mechanisms to increase PEST have taken a number of forms. One of the most visible features of this shift towards PEST in ISIs is the organization
While theoretical work and empirical research have examined science policy-informing “dialogue events,” dialogue events that do not seek to inform public policy are under-theorized and under-researched, even though they are common and growing in popularity in the UK. We describe how, from a critical perspective, it may initially appear that such events cannot be justified without returning to the deficit model. But with this paper, we seek to open up a discussion about these non policy-informing events by arguing that there are in fact further ways to understand and frame them. We deliberately
This paper was presented at the 10th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST-10). The authors conducted a survey to lay the groundwork for a national survey to determine the relative importance of science communication to university scientists and engineers, to reveal what factors facilitate or impede communication of science to the non-specialist public on communicating their research, and to provide evidence to substantiate where resources should be targeted and to help develop programming for innovative and effective public engagement.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Susi Sturzenegger-VarvayanisGina EoscoSara BallKelvin LeeMegan HalpernBruce Lewenstein
If the science research and education community is to increase the number and degree of commitment of scientists who participate in public engagement activities, we must understand their perceptions of values, obstacles, and incentives in the science academic environment. This document contains a preliminary distillation of the results of two surveys (2012, 2014) that begins the process of understanding attitudes of science academics and science administrators.