This document summarizes research on scientists' communication behavior and willingness to engage with the public. Key findings include: - Scientists have negative views of the public and media, but want to be helpful. They lack training in public engagement. - Willingness to engage online is predicted by younger age, higher efficacy beliefs, and a desire to contribute to debates. - Defending science against misinformation is scientists' top priority for online engagement goals. Prioritizing strategic goals depends on attitudes, norms, and efficacy related to those goals.

1. Understanding Scientists’
Communication Behavior
John C. Besley,
Ellis N. Brant Chair in Public Relations, Michigan State
… with Anthony Dudo
Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas

2. What I want to highlight today…
Assumptions:
• Our society needs strong support for science to flourish
• Scientists can help build through effective communication with fellow citizens
Key questions:
• What shapes scientists willingness to communicate
• What shapes scientists willingness to communicate effectively/strategically?
We must “supplement our studies and
activities on the understanding of science by
the public, with studies and activities on the
understanding of the public by scientists.”

3. Lots of great qualitative work …
Summary of key findings …
• Scientists don’t think much of the public
• Scientists don’t think much of the media
• Scientists want to be helpful
• Scientists know little of “public engagement” idea
• Primary solution is BELIEVED TO BE education

4. A key problem is …
• Evidence suggests limited
relationship between science
knowledge and attitudes
(Allum, Strugis, & Tabourazi, 2008)
• Limited evidence that
scientific knowledge is
going to change in near future
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.

5. Past Research on What gets scientists to “engage”
Attitudes/Norms/Efficacy
• Past Behavior (Poliakoff and Web, 2007)
• Positive engagement attitude (Poliakoff and Web, 2007, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013 Dudo, 2013)
• Perceived skills (efficacy) (Poliakoff and Web, 2007, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013, Dudo, 2013)
• Belief that others are engaging (norms) (Poliakoff and Web, 2007)
• Perceived moral obligation(Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Dudo, 2013, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)
• Perceived personal benefits (Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)
Demographics
• Field (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013 , Marcinowski et al, 2014)
• Seniority/Rank/Age (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013, Dudo 2013)
• Gender (Bentley & Kvik, 2011)
Other factors
• Resources (money/time) (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Marcinowski et al, 2014, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)
• Training (Dudo, 2013)
Most recent work: Surveys with AAAS members …
• Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
• Fall 2013 (n = 390): Views about online engagement goals

6. Most recent work
In the last two years, about how many total days did you devote
to engagement in the following forms (i.e., two half days = 1 day)?
32.7
45.8
53.7
54.1
64.6
65.7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Face-to-Face engagement - Adults
Face-to-Face engagement - Youth
Media interviews - Print/Online
Online engagement - Adults
Media interviews - Audio/Video
Online engagement - Youth.
0 Days
About 1 day
About 2 days
About 3 days
About 4-10 days
More than 10 days
M = 2.76
M = 2.31
M = 1.82
M = 2.34
M = 1.86
M = 1.67
Combined M (alpha = .83) = 2.12
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Many scientists are engaging: F2F is the most
popular; Online engagement is least popular.

7. Most recent work
How willing would you be to take part in the following types of engagement or outreach?
All questions had a range of 1-5 and were asked using a scale
anchored by “not at all willing” and “very willing”
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Online engagement - Adults
Online engagement - Youth.
Online Willingness (alpha = .87)
Face-to-Face engagement - Adults
Face-to-Face engagement - Youth
F2F Willingness (alpha = .83)
Media interviews - Audio/Video
Media interviews - Print/Online
Media Willingness (alpha = .94)
Overall, respondents said they be
willing to give about 7.6 days, but
that’s affected by outliers (100+ days)
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement

8. Most recent work
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Please select the point between the two options that
captures your views about ONLINE public engagement
All questions had a range of 1-6 and
were asked using a bipolar scale
4.2
4.6
4.4
2.4
2.9
2.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Scientists not well regarded/Well ...
Colleagues would not approve/Would …
Subjective Norms Average (alpha = .76)
Most scientists do not take part/Do take part …
My colleages do not take part/Do take part …
Descriptive Norms Average (alpha = .75)
Subjective Norms
Most scientists think their colleagues
like online engagement, but don’t
do it very much

9. Most recent work
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Please select the point between the two options that
captures your views about ONLINE public engagement
3.5
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.8
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Do not have time/Have time
Do not think can make difference/Can make …
Think engagement waste of time/Do not …
External Efficacy (alpha = .75)
Do not have skills/Have skills
Expertise too specialized/Not too …
Expertise not interesting/Is …
Internal efficacy (alpha = .75)
All questions had a range of 1-6 and were asked using a bipolar scale
ExternalEfficacyInternalEfficacy
Most scientists feel they have little
time for engagement but think it can
be effective and that they have skills

10. Online
Engagement
Willingness
Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates
Things that predict
engagement:
• Being younger
• Efficacy
• Desire to
contribute to
debate
Things that don’t:
• (Most) demos.
• Academic field*
• Research type*
• University type*
• Most objectives*
• Most reasons*
*Dropped from model
-0.35
-0.06
0.04
-0.02
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
-0.02
0.04
0.24
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.19
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Age
Female
White
Liberal (5 point scale)
Retired
Fairness: Distributive
Fairness: Procedural
Problem: Low Knowledge
Norms: Subjective
Norms: Descriptive
Efficacy: Time
Efficacy: Internal
Efficacy: External
Identity: Pride
Goal: Contribute to Debate
Adjusted r2: .26
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement

11. Online
Engagement
Willingness
Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates
Things that matter:
• Being younger
• Efficacy
• Desire to
contribute to
debate
Things that don’t
seem to matter:
• (Most) demos.
• Academic field*
• Research type*
• University type*
• Most objectives*
• Most reasons*
*Dropped from model
-0.35
-0.06
0.04
-0.02
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
-0.02
0.04
0.24
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.19
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Age
Female
White
Liberal (5 point scale)
Retired
Fairness: Distributive
Fairness: Procedural
Problem: Low Knowledge
Norms: Subjective
Norms: Descriptive
Efficacy: Time
Efficacy: Internal
Efficacy: External
Identity: Pride
Goal: Contribute to Debate
Adjusted r2: .26
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Conclusions from 2012 data:
• If you want scientists to engagement, it may help to…
• Decrease perceived time commitment
• Increase perceived skill
• Increase perceived impact
• Increase perceived broader impacts
• Implications for …
• How we promote engagement opportunities and training

12. Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Strategic
Comm.
Priorities

13. All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Best predictors are … (Adj. R2 = .31-37)
• Attitudes
• If you think a goal is ethical
• Norms
• If you think your colleagues prioritize a goal
• Efficacy
• If you think a goal works (external efficacy)
• If you think you can do a goal (internal efficacy)
Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement

14. All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement
Conclusions from 2013 data:
• If you want scientists to engage more strategically …
• Increase perceived ethicality of strategic goals
• Increase perceived impact of strategic goals
• Increase perceived skills related to strategic goals
• Implications for …
• What we emphasize in engagement training
(Do we focus on skills at expense of goal selection?)

15. Bonus Material:
Not for Presentation

16. Past Online
Engagement
Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates
Things that matter:
• Funding
• Norms
• Efficacy
Things that don’t
seem to matter:
• Views of the public
• Demographics
• Academic field*
• Research type*
• University type*
• Communication
objectives*
• Reasons for
becoming a
scientist*
*Dropped from model
-0.10
0.06
-0.05
-0.05
0.02
0.03
-0.07
0.15
-0.02
0.06
-0.02
0.00
-0.13
0.16
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.04
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Age
Female
White
Liberal (5 point scale)
Retired
Funding: DOD
Funding: NIH
Funding: NSF
Funding: Other Federal
Fairness: Distributive
Fairness: Procedural
Problem: Low Knowledge
Norms: Subjective
Norms: Descriptive
Efficacy: Time
Efficacy: Internal
Efficacy: External
Identity: Pride
Adjusted r2: .18
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement

17. All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Things that predict ‘defending science’ as priority (Adj. R2 = .36)
• Attitudes
• Views about the public (procedural/interpersonal fairness)
• If you think defending science is ethical
• Norms
• If you think your colleagues engage (descriptive norms)
• If you think your colleagues prioritize defending science
• Efficacy
• If you think defending science works (external efficacy)
• If you think you can defend science (internal efficacy)
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagementMost recent work: Goals

18. Most recent work
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Things that predict ‘informing’ as priority (Adj. R2 = .36)
• Attitudes
• Views about the public (procedural/interpersonal fairness)
• Enjoying engagement
• If you think defending science is ethical
• Norms
• If you think your colleagues engage and value engagement
(descriptive and subjective norms)
• Demographics
• Being female (-), Being in chemistry (-)
• News consumption
Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement