1887

Microbiologists’ Public Engagement Views and Behaviors

    Authors: Anthony Dudo1, John Besley2, Lee Ann Kahlor1, Hyeseung Koh1, Jacob Copple1, Shupei Yuan3
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712; 2: Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; 3: Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    78.08 Kb
  • PDF
    323.88 Kb
  • HTML
    64.01 Kb

    Abstract:

    In this study, we present results from an extensive survey of US-based microbiologists (adults) to explore these scientists’ perceptions and behaviors related to communicating their research. Specifically, we explored the frequency with which microbiologists engage in public communication, how they evaluate their public communication experiences, and the factors associated with their willingness to engage in face-to-face and online public communication in the future. Data from a multi-wave online survey suggest that microbiologists (N = 903) are somewhat frequent communicators who derive great value from their outreach efforts. The results further suggest that social and psychological drivers of future intentions to engage with the public are consistent with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Specifically, microbiologists with more positive attitudes toward engagement were more willing to partake in direct and online communication activities. Similarly, microbiologists who believe they possess communication skills are more willing than their less efficacious colleagues to do either type of outreach. Our results also indicate that more-senior and more-active researchers are more willing to participate in direct and online engagement. Implications for communication training are discussed.

References & Citations

1. Sachs JS2007Good germs, bad germs: health and survival in a bacterial worldHill and WangNew York, NY
2. Schrödinger E1951Science and humanism: physics in our timeCambridge University PressCambridge
3. Shugart EC, Racaniello VR2015Scientists: engage the public!mBio6e0198915
4. Burnham JC1987How superstition won and science lost: popularizing science and health in the United StatesRutgers University PressNew Brunswick, NJ
5. Nelkin D1995Selling science: how the press covers science and technologyW. H. FreemanNew York, NY
6. Nelkin D1987The culture of science journalismSociety246172510.1007/BF02695570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02695570
7. Friedman SM, Dunwoody S, Rogers C1986Scientists and journalists: reporting science as newsFree PressNew York, NY
8. Holt RD2015Why science? Why AAAS?Science347622480710.1126/science.aaa912625700491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9126
9. Leshner AI2015Bridging the opinion gapScience347622145910.1126/science.aaa747725635062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477
10. Leshner AI2006Science and public engagementChron High EducAvailable from: http://chronicle.com/article/SciencePublic-Engagement/25084
11. Leshner AI2003Public engagement with scienceScience299560997710.1126/science.299.5609.97712586907 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.977
12. Cicerone R2006Celebrating and rethinking science communication12The National Academy of Science – In FocusThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
13. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine2016Effective chemistry communication in informal environmentsThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
14. National Research Council1989Improving risk communicationThe National Academies PressWashington, DC
15. European Union2002Science and society: action planOffice for the Official Publications of the European CommunitiesLuxembourg, EU
16. Royal Society2006Science communicationThe Royal SocietyLondon, England
17. Bauer MW, Jensen P2011The mobilization of scientists for public engagementPublic Underst Sci2031110.1177/0963662510394457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457
18. Besley JC, Oh SH, Nisbet M2013Predicting scientists’ participation in public lifePublic Underst Sci2297198710.1177/096366251245931523825262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
19. Rainie L, Funk C, Anderson M2015How scientists engage the publicPew Research CenterWashington, DC
20. Royal Society2006Factors affecting science communication: a survey of scientists and engineershttps://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf
21. Hamlyn B, Shanahan M, Lewis H, O’Donoghue E, Hanson T, Burchell K2015Factors affecting public engagement by researchersThe Wellcome TrustLondon, England
22. Besley JC2014What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Sci Public Pol4220121410.1093/scipol/scu042 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu042
23. Crettaz von Roten F2011Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activitiesSci Commun33527510.1177/1075547010378658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658
24. Torres-Albero C, Fernández-Esquinas M, Rey-Rocha J, Martín-Sempere MJ2011Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: scientists trapped in a golden cagePublic Underst Sci20122510.1177/0963662510382361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510382361
25. Bentley P, Kyvik S2011Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countriesPublic Underst Sci20486310.1177/0963662510384461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510384461
26. Kreimer P, Levin L, Jensen P2011Popularization by Argentine researchers: the activities and motivations of CONICET scientistsPublic Underst Sci20374710.1177/0963662510383924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383924
27. Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Dudo A2009Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist–media interactionsJournal Mass Commun Q8629931410.1177/107769900908600203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600203
28. Jensen PA2011Statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in FrancePublic Underst Sci20263610.1177/0963662510383632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383632
29. Ajzen I1991The theory of planned behaviorOrganiz Behav Human Decis Proc5017921110.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
30. Ajzen I, Fishbein M2005The influence of attitudes on behavior173221 Albarrracin D, Johnson BT, Zanna MPThe Handbook of AttitudesLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ
31. Dudo A, Kahlor L, AbiGhannam N, Lazard A, Liang M2014An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicatorsNat Nanotechnol984184410.1038/nnano.2014.19425218326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.194
32. Poliakoff E, Webb TL2007What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Sci Commun2924226310.1177/1075547007308009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
33. Dudo A2013Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: the case of biomedical researchersSci Commun3547650110.1177/1075547012460845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845
34. Marcinkowski F, Kohring M, Fürst S, Friedrichsmeier A2014Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: an empirical investigationSci Commun36568010.1177/1075547013494022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547013494022
35. You J2014The top 50 science stars of TwitterSciencewww.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/top-50-science-stars-twitter10.1126/science.345.6203.1440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.345.6203.1440
36. Hutchinson A2015Debunking germophobiaBuzzsawwww.buzzsawmag.org/2015/04/02/debunking-germophobia/
37. Kahlor LA, Dudo A, Liang MC, AbiGhannam N2015What are you saying? Challenges and opportunities for increasing visibility and understanding of indoor microbiological researchIndoor Built Environ2468268810.1177/1420326X14531000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X14531000
38. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM2008Internet, mail, & mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method3rd edWileyHoboken, NJ
39. Nisbet MC, Dudo A2013Entertainment media portrayals and their effects on the public understanding of science241249 Nelson DJ, Grazier KR, Pagial J, Perkowitz SHollywood chemistry: when science met entertainmentAmerican Chemical SocietyWashington, DC10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
40. Armitage CJ, Conner M2001Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic reviewBr J Soc Psychol4047149910.1348/014466601164939 http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
41. Ouellette JA, Wood W1998Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behaviorPsychol Bull124547410.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54
42. Besley JC, Nisbet M2013How scientists view the public, the media and the political processPublic Underst Sci2264465910.1177/096366251141874323885050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743
43. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S2008Interactions with the mass mediaScience32120420510.1126/science.115778018625578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1157780
44. Pearson G, Pringle SM, Thomas JN1997Scientists and the public understanding of sciencePublic Underst Sci627928910.1088/0963-6625/6/3/006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/006
45. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S2008Science-media interface: it’s time to reconsiderSci Commun3026627610.1177/1075547008324809 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547008324809
46. Johnson DR, Ecklund EH, Lincoln AE2014Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic scienceSci Commun368110510.1177/1075547013499142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547013499142
47. Bartholomew D2000Academia or industry: finding the fitSciencewww.sciencemag.org/careers/2000/08/academia-or-industry-finding-fit
48. Besley JC, Dudo A2017Scientists’ views about public engagement and science communication in the context of climate changeOxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communicationhttp://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-380
49. Smith B, Baron N, English C, Galindo H, Goldman E, McLeod K, Miner M, Neeley E2013COMPASS: navigating the rules of scientific engagementPLOS Biol11e100155210.1371/journal.pbio.1001552236375753640098 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001552

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402
2018-03-30
2018-09-19

Abstract:

In this study, we present results from an extensive survey of US-based microbiologists (adults) to explore these scientists’ perceptions and behaviors related to communicating their research. Specifically, we explored the frequency with which microbiologists engage in public communication, how they evaluate their public communication experiences, and the factors associated with their willingness to engage in face-to-face and online public communication in the future. Data from a multi-wave online survey suggest that microbiologists (N = 903) are somewhat frequent communicators who derive great value from their outreach efforts. The results further suggest that social and psychological drivers of future intentions to engage with the public are consistent with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Specifically, microbiologists with more positive attitudes toward engagement were more willing to partake in direct and online communication activities. Similarly, microbiologists who believe they possess communication skills are more willing than their less efficacious colleagues to do either type of outreach. Our results also indicate that more-senior and more-active researchers are more willing to participate in direct and online engagement. Implications for communication training are discussed.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/1/jmbe-19-28.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Microbiologists’ frequency of engagement with the public between October 2014 and October 2015 (the last year prior to survey completion) via online platforms, face-to-face interaction, interactions with media professionals, and direct interactions with government/policymakers (n = 903).

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Microbiologists’ evaluations of their overall public engagement experiences (n = 700).

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error