Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) meeting presentation - 2016
18
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. How different are they? Comparing scientific societies’ views about engagement
-
Upload
john-c-besley -
Category
Education
-
view
386 -
download
1
Transcript of Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) meeting presentation - 2016
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
How different are they? Comparing scientific societies’ views about engagement
Strategy
Project goals and background
Survey Findings: Differences Between Societies?
Implications and future research
1
2
3
3
Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific Societies
Type of society N Rate n* Avg. Age Male White
General 1,257 8% 1,064 62 69% 90%
Microbiology* 1,111 14% 634** 53 54% 60%
Geophysical 1,013 10% 877** 50 65% 89%
Geological 2,304 10% 666 50 67% 92%
Chemical# 1,257 5% 374** 51 68% 86%
Ecological 732 11% 339 53 60% 93%
Biochemistry (TBD)
Social Science (TBD)
Sci. Comm. Experts (TBD)* Respondents who are university affiliated and not a student and all societies except the ecological society received 4 contacts (they received 3 contacts), **Sample for some reported questions smaller because of sample splitting by engagement mode, # Survey still in progress
4
Our goals …• Help trainers identify drivers of engagement• Help trainers understand how scientists
are thinking about engagement• Get more scientists to communicate
more strategically (i.e., more effectively)
Tactics Communication Objectives
Ultimate Goals
(more complicated version coming …)
5
Past Engagement previous 12 months (never) …
Type of society F2F News Online Policy
General 34% 45% 59% 58%
Microbiology 41% 54% 51% 70%
Geophysical 26% 38% 47% 59%
Geological 21% 41% 51% 62%
Chemical (TBD) 40% 62% 60% 77%
Ecological (TBD) 26% 38% 47% 59%
0.00-9.99
10.00-19.99
20.00-29.99
30.00-39.99
40.00-49.99
50.00-59.99
60.00-69.99
70.00-79.99
80.00-89.99
90.00-100.00 %
Many scientists engage, especially face-to-face
6
Past Engagement previous 12 months … 6+ times
Type of society F2F Online News Policy
General 23% 22% 11% 9%
Microbiology 19% 22% 6% 5%
Geophysical 24% 21% 12% 11%
Geological 30% 28% 10% 9%
Chemical 17% 18% 5% 3%
Ecological 24% 28% 12% 9%
0.00-9.99
10.00-19.99
20.00-29.99
30.00-39.99
40.00-49.99
50.00-59.99
60.00-69.99
70.00-79.99
80.00-89.99
90.00-100.00 %
Face-to-face is most common, direct policy
engagement is least common
7
Willingness to engage …
Type of society F2F Policy News Online
General 5.63 5.25 5.14 3.98Microbiology 5.81 5.32 5.05 4.57Geophysical 5.97 5.43 5.46 4.62Geological 5.97 5.17 5.23 4.25Chemical 5.38 4.64 4.58 4.20
Ecological 6.02 5.63 5.54 4.55
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08Scientists want to engage, especially face-to-face and
with policy makers
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1
9
Societal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of society Use Evidence
Culture Values
Better Personal
Research Funding
STEM Careers
Diversify STEM
General 6.34 6.15 5.59 5.52 5.29 5.05Microbiology 6.38 6.31 5.80 5.78 5.46 5.22Geophysical 6.40 6.06 5.50 5.00 5.03 5.08Geological 6.35 6.09 5.66 5.15 5.41 5.00Chemical (TBD) 6.11 6.18 5.62 5.51 5.28 5.03
Ecological (TBD) 6.54 6.04 5.76 5.09 5.07 5.26• Getting policy makers to use scientific evidence• Helping ensure our culture values science• Helping people use science to make better personal
decisions• Obtaining adequate funding for scientific research• Getting more young people to choose scientific
careers• Helping to diversify the STEM workforce
10
Societal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of society Use Evidence
Value Science
Better Personal
Research Funding
STEM Careers
Diversify STEM
General 6.34 6.15 5.59 5.52 5.29 5.05Microbiology 6.38 6.31 5.80 5.78 5.46 5.22Geophysical 6.40 6.06 5.50 5.00 5.03 5.08Geological 6.35 6.09 5.66 5.15 5.41 5.00Chemical 6.11 6.18 5.62 5.51 5.28 5.03
Ecological 6.54 6.04 5.76 5.09 5.07 5.26
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08Scientists most want others to draw on evidence and
value science culture
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Very similar results for other modalities (i.e. online,
media), when available
11
Personal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of societyIncrease Impact
Fulfill Duty
Personal Enjoy
Obtain Funding
Meet Others
General 5.87 5.72 5.13 4.10 4.09Microbiology 5.90 5.65 5.00 4.70 4.49Geophysical 5.86 5.67 4.99 4.19 4.08Geological 5.55 5.59 5.04 3.97 4.23Chemical (TBD) 5.38 5.64 5.17 4.56 4.58
Ecological 6.07 5.79 4.76 3.98 3.99
• Increasing the impact of research• Fulfilling a sense of duty to society• Personal enjoyment• Obtaining research funding• Meeting other scientists
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
12
Personal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of societyIncrease Impact
Fulfill Duty
Personal Enjoy
Obtain Funding
Meet Others
General 5.87 5.72 5.13 4.10 4.09Microbiology 5.90 5.65 5.00 4.70 4.49Geophysical 5.86 5.67 4.99 4.19 4.08Geological 5.55 5.59 5.04 3.97 4.23Chemical 5.38 5.64 5.17 4.56 4.58
Ecological 6.07 5.79 4.76 3.98 3.99
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Scientists most want to increase their impact and
fulfill their duty
2
14
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Very similar results for mediated, and online engagement
Type of society
Inform/Educate
Interest/Excite
DefendScience
Show caring
Show openness
Frame Issue
Show Values
Hear Others
Show Expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
• Helping to inform people about scientific issues• Getting people interested or excited about
science• Defending science from those who spread
falsehoods• Showing that the scientific community cares
about society's well-being• Demonstrating the scientific community's
openness and transparency• Framing research implications so members of the
public think about a topic in a way that resonates with their values
• Showing that scientists share community values• Hearing what others think about scientific issues• Showing the scientific community's expertise
15
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of society
Inform/Educate
Interest/Excite
Defendscience
Show caring
Show openness
Frame issue
Show values
Hear others
Show expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Inform, defend, and excite are most common
objectives for scientists
16
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of society
Inform/Educate
Interest/Excite
DefendScience
Show caring
Show openness
Frame Issue
Show Values
Hear Others
Show Expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Scientists say strategic objectives are priorities, but
less than traditional objectives
17
Prior consideration of specific objectives(for Face-to-Face engagement) …Type of society
Inform/Educate
Interest/Excite
Defendscience
Show caring
Show openness
Frame issue
Show values
Hear others
Show expert
General 5.01 5.09 4.78 4.11 3.95 3.84 3.75 3.93 4.06Microbiology 4.86 5.05 4.86 4.15 4.05 3.85 3.80 3.97 3.82Geophysical 5.25 5.24 5.05 4.18 4.25 4.14 3.77 4.05 4.14Geological 5.10 5.21 4.94 4.16 3.85 3.98 3.66 4.00 4.12Chemical 4.79 5.03 4.73 4.25 3.94 3.98 3.90 3.85 3.95
Ecological 5.64 5.52 5.03 4.31 4.24 4.35 3.75 4.41 4.02
1.00-1.49
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00-4.49
4.50-4.99
5.00-5.49
5.50-5.99
6.00-6.49
6.50-7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
On average, scientists have thought less about more
strategic objectives
18
Implications and future research …• Scientists want to engage
• more so via F2F and Direct to policy makers• less so via media and online
• Scientists’ communication goal priorities:• getting science to guide public policy and
getting fellow citizens to value science culture• Scientists’ communication objectives priorities:
• traditional (teaching/defending/exciting) and showing scientists care• opportunity to diversify objectives to help meet goals
• Minimal differences between studied societies• … ecologists and chemists?
Stay tuned … lots more data to come! Different modalities? Data on attitudes,
norms, efficacy beliefs, a range of demographics, etc.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
