Snapshot of research trends in PCST that Rick Borchelt presented at the conference in Firenze on April 20, 2012. Office of Public Affairs and Research Communication, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

1. THE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
LITERATURE MAPPING PROJECT
LOOKING BACKAT A DECADEOF PCST RESEARCH, 2000-
2009
Rick Borchelt
National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health
rick.borchelt@nih.gov

2. PCST at an Inflection Point
• Has PCST matured into an independent field of
enquiry?
• Is there an articulated research agenda with
commonly agreed provocative questions to drive
research?
• Who sets/controls the PCST research agenda?
3/28/2012 2

3. UPDATINGTHE TRADITIONAL LITERATURE REVIEW USING
DATA VISUALIZATION SOFTWARE
• Rapid growth of science communication research over the
past ten years;
• Need to understand what has been accomplished and where
future research should head;
• Traditional literature reviews seek to identify important
patterns in research—research fronts, emerging issues;
• ―Visual representations of data take advantage of the unique
ability of visual perception to detect meaningful patterns that
might otherwise remain hidden.‖ (Few, 2007)
3

4. OBJECTIVESOF THE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
LITERATURE MAPPING PROJECT
• Use data visualization software to map the landscape
of recent science communication research (2000-
2009);
• Identify the active countries, major methodologies,
and research topical fronts during the past decade;
• Lay the foundation for a research agenda for the next
decade of science communications research
4

5. Two PHASESOF PROJECT METHODOLOGY
Constructthe Research Literature Analyzethedatausing IN-SPIRE
Database: data visualization software
• Define the parameters of the •Upload EndNote data into
literature review (dates, inclusion IN-SPIRE
and exclusion criteria);
• Data refinement in IN-SPIRE; and
• Select the search engine;
• Use of IN-SPIRE analytic tools
• Select the search terms; (Galaxy View, Heat Map, Time,
Correlation)
• Import citation data into
EndNote; and
• Clean the citation data.
5

6. CONSTRUCTINGTHE RESEARCH LITERATUREON
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Defining the parameters of the Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria
review:
Focus on reports of original science Included: Journal articles, historical
communication research that articles, evaluation studies, meta-
analyses and systematic reviews.
– Were published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals;
– Were available in English language;
Excluded: Abstracts, bibliographies,
– Were published between 2000 and
2009; books, commentaries, conference or
symposia proceedings, editorials,
– Excluded research on formal science
education and teaching; and essays, introductory articles, letters
to editor, narrative reviews,
– Excluded research on health responses and rejoinders, reports,
communication.
and narrative literature reviews.
6

7. SELECTIONOF GOOGLE SCHOLARAS SEARCH ENGINE
Strengths of Google Scholar: Limitations of Google Scholar:
• Covers a wide range of social • Absence of a controlled search
science, biomedical and natural vocabulary;
science journals and sources;
• Cannot restrict output to peer-
• Convenience (speed, ease of reviewed journal articles;
use, free);
• Cannot view more than the first
• Generates many results; and 1,000 results (―hits‖);
• Duplicate citations must be
• Can easily import citation removed manually from
information into bibliographic successive searches;
database (EndNote).
• Unknown scope of coverage.
7

8. SELECTIONOF GOOGLE SCHOLAR SEARCH TERMS
Search terms were generated Final Google Scholar Search Terms
from three sources: Science / Technology Communication
Public Understanding of Science /
• The Science Communication Technology
project team at the National
Public Engagement /Participation
Cancer Institute;
Science / Technology Coverage in: mass
media; print media; newspapers; television;
• Members of the PCST Scientific film or movies
Committee; and Science or Scientific Literacy
Science Journalism
• Several terms suggested by
Burns, O’Connor and Stocklmayer Risk Communication
(2003) in their article on defining
science communication research. Risk Perception
Science / Technology and Culture
8

9. STEPSIN THE DATA CLEANING PROCESS (ENDNOTE)
Once the citation data were imported into EndNote, the following
process was begun:
Review Key Create Key Revise available
Words for each Words if none Key Words and
record were encoded either delete or
re-code as
(n=1,237) (~70 % of records)
needed
Review final list
Inspect final Review authors of Key Words
EndNote dataset in each record (n=670) and
prior to import and standardize reduce to a
into IN-SPIRE names manageable set
(n=199)
9

10. OVERVIEW: CHARACTERISTICSOF LITERATURE
• 1,237 papers from 2000-2009;
• 2,462 authors (mean of about two authors per paper);
• 471 Journals; and
• 199 Key Words;
10

11. SCI-COMM RESEARCH ARTICLES, 2000-2009
(n=1,237)
Number of Articles Published by Year
250
230
196
200
148 148
150
112 115
100 92
72
62 62
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
More than twice as many articles were published between 2005-2009 as between 2000-2004
11

12. TOP10 JOURNALS PUBLISHING SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
RESEARCH, 2000-2009
Public Understanding of Science 179
Science Communication 135
Risk Analysis 55
Journal of Risk Research 33
Journal of Science Communication 29
New Genetics and Society 26
Health, Risk, and Society 24
Global Environmental Change 14
British Food Journal 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
The top 10 journals accounted for 518 of 1,237 papers, or 42 percent. 12

13. TOP 11 MOST FREQUENT AUTHORS / CO-AUTHORSOF
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH PAPERS, 2000-2009
Number of Papers as Author or Co-Author, 2000-2009
Pidgeon, N. 22
Frewer, L.J. 21
Rowe, G. 16
Condit, C.M. 15
Nerlich, B. 14
Brossard, D. 11
McComas, K.A. 11
Siegrist, M. 11
Besley, J.C. 10
Poortinga, W. 10
Priest, S.H. 10
0 5 10 15 20 25
404 authors (16 percent) published 2 or more papers between 2000-2009.
13

14. NUMBEROF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
PUBLICATIONSBY COUNTRY, 2000-2009
Russia
Canada United Kingdom 2
77 270
Japan2
4
United States Netherlands: 35 China
427 Germany: 30
Italy: 23 14
Sweden: 23 Morocco
Denmark: 23 2 India
Mexico
Spain: 16 11
France: 13
4 Greece: 12
Portugal: 2
Columbia
Nigeria
2 1
Brazil
10
Australia
51
South Africa
3
New Zealand
25
14

15. TOP FIVE COUNTRIES PUBLISHING
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2000-2009
United States 427
United Kingdom 270
Canada 77
Australia 51
Netherlands 35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
15

16. TOP5 MOST FREQUENT STUDY METHODSIN PUBLISHED
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 2000-2009
Surveys or Questionnaires 331
Content Analysis 290
Interviews 159
Case Studies 149
Secondary Analyses of Surveys 78
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
16

17. SELECTED TOPICSIN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
Frequency of Publications on Selected Topics, 2000-2009
Public Engagement 100
Climate Change 93
Environment 91
Genetically Modified Foods 83
Natural Resources 64
Nanotechnology 62
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
4/12/12 17

18. MAPPINGOFTHE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
RESEARCH LITERATURE, 2000-2009
• IN-SPIREuses a mathematical clustering algorithm to calculate degrees of similarity
and dissimilarity in most frequently occurring key words. Based on this algorithm, the
software can create several visual representations of a dataset:
• Galaxy view: A plot of all of the documents contained in the dataset showing the
topical relationships between them.
– Proximity implies relatedness; distant clusters are less topically related.
– Each document is represented by a dot, and the closer two dots are plotted, the more similar they
are in topical content.
• ThemeView Classic (Heat Map): The ThemeView Classic is a form of Heat
Map, which is a three-dimensional version of the Galaxy view.
– The height of a peak corresponds to the number of documents on a topic, and is further highlighted
by a brighter color.
– Look for proximate peaks, valleys and spaces between formations as indicators of underlying
topical patterns.
18

19. GALAXY VIEW, FULL SCI-COMM DATASET
(n=1,237)
19

20. HEAT MAP VIEW, FULL SCI-COMM DATASET
(n=1,237)
20

21. SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH LITERATURE
FIVE-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004
(n=400)
21

22. SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH LITERATURE
FIVE-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009
(n=837)
22

23. TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2001
(n=124)
23

24. TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2002-2003
(n=184)
24

25. TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2004-2005
(n=207)
25

26. TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2006-2007
(n=296)
26

27. TWO-YEAR HEAT MAP VIEW, 2008-2009
(n=426)
27

28. HEAT MAP VIEW,
UNITED STATES STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=427)
28

29. HEAT MAP VIEW,
UNITED KINGDOM STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=270)
29

30. HEAT MAP VIEW,
CANADIAN STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=77)
30

31. HEAT MAP VIEW,
AUSTRALIAN STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=51)
31

32. HEAT MAP VIEW,
NETHERLANDS STUDIES, 2000-2009
(n=35)
32

33. ARTICLESON SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TOPICS
PUBLISHEDIN TWO PRIMARY JOURNALS, 2000-2009
Total Articles on
Public Understanding Science
Research Topic This Topic in
of Science Communication
Dataset
Public Engagement 20 10 100
Climate Change 13 7 93
Environment 10 6 91
Genetically Modified
12 3 83
Foods
Natural Resources 5 6 64
Nanotechnology 11 9 62
Food Safety 3 4 54
Emerging Infectious
1 5 53
Diseases
Science Journalism 7 9 46
33

34. RESEARCH METHODS USEDIN ARTICLES PUBLISHEDIN TWO
PRIMARY SCIENCE COMMUNICATION JOURNALS,
2000-2009
Public Understanding Science Total Articles
Research Method of Science Communication Using This
(n=179) (n=135) Method in Dataset
Surveys or
17% 30% 331
Questionnaires
Content Analysis 24% 31% 290
Interviews 13% 9% 159
Case Studies 18% 7% 149
Secondary
Analysis of 7% 4% 78
Surveys
Focus Groups 10% 4% 72
Evaluation Studies 3% 2% 56
34

35. THREE CASE STUDIESOF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
RESEARCH TOPICS
How are different Science Communication research issues investigated
over time?
Are particular research methods more likely to be applied at different times
in the investigation of a science communication research issue?
We selected three research issues (Public Engagement, Climate Change
and Genetically Modified Foods) to examine in greater detail.
These cases met the following criteria:
–Actively investigated over entire 10-year period; and
–Reasonable number of papers published on each in the dataset.
35

36. FREQUENCYOF PUBLISHED ARTICLESBY YEAR
FOR THREE RESEARCH CASES
30
26
25
23
22
20
18
17
15 15 15
15
11 11 11
10 9 9 9
8
7
6 6
5 5
5 4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Public Engagement Climate Change Genetically Modified Foods
36

37. HEAT MAP VIEW
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ARTICLES, 2000-2009
(n=100)
37

38. HEAT MAP VIEW,
CLIMATE CHANGE ARTICLES, 2000-2009
(n=93)
38

39. HEAT MAP VIEW:
ARTICLESON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, 2000-2009
(n=83)
39

40. RESEARCH METHODSIN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
RESEARCH STUDIESBY TIME PERIOD, 2000-2009
30%
27% 27%
25%
25% 23%
20%
15% 13% 13% 13%
10% 9%
7%
6% 6% 6%
5%
0%
Content Surveys or Case Studies Interviews Secondary Focus Groups
Analysis Questionnaires Analyses
2000-2004 2005-2009
40

41. PROPORTIONSOF PUBLISHED STUDIESON
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT USING VARIOUS RESEARCH METHODS
BY TIME PERIOD
50%
45% 43%
40%
35%
30%
25% 24%
20% 18% 17%
15% 12% 12%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
2000-2004 2005-2009
Content Analysis Case Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Interviews
41

42. PROPORTIONSOF PUBLISHED STUDIESON
CLIMATE CHANGE USING VARIOUS RESEARCH METHODS
BY TIME PERIOD
90%
81%
80%
70%
60%
52%
50%
40%
31% 29%
30%
20% 15%
10% 5% 5% 3%
0%
2000-2004 2005-2009
Content Analysis Case Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Interviews
42

43. PROPORTIONSOF PUBLISHED STUDIESONGENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODSUSING VARIOUS RESEARCH METHODS
BY TIME PERIOD
30%
26%
25%
25% 23%
20%
15%
15% 13%
10%
5% 4% 4% 4%
0%
2000-2004 2005-2009
Content Analysis Case Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Interviews
43

44. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004
(n=17)
44

45. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009
(n=83)
45

46. CLIMATE CHANGE
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004
(n=21)
46

47. CLIMATE CHANGE
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009
(n=72)
47

48. GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2000-2004
(n=27)
48

49. GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
HEAT MAP VIEW, 2005-2009
(n=56)
49

50. Ramifications
• What do these data say about us as a research
community?
• What do these data say about us as a
publishing community? (and about access to
research findings by practitioners)?
• What do these data say about who sets the
agenda for PCST research?
3/28/2012 50

51. What do these data say about us as a
research community?
• That we are generally more closely aligned
with science/technology focus areas that with
communication research per se
• Is there life beyond content analysis and
attitude surveys?
3/28/2012 51

52. What do these data say about us as a
publishing community?
• We favor publications in “gray lit” rather than
peer-reviewed journals (esp. books and
monographs)
• This might be okay for the small community of
researchers, but puts our research out of the
reach of most practitioners
• Need a more robust “open access” approach
to PCST research
3/28/2012 52

53. What do these data say about who
sets the agenda for PCST research?
• Seems primarily driven by “utilitarian”
approach, emerging issue by issue
• Sustained funding is not available to address
fundamental questions in PCST research not
tied to utilitarian model
• PCST requires a new agenda driven by
provocative questions and a funding stream to
support it
3/28/2012 53

54. Acknowledgments
Margaret Ames, Karl Poonai
NCI Office of Science Planning and Assessment
Jack Scott, Margaret Blasinksy
The Madrillon Group, Inc.
Ben Carollo
NCI Office of Public Affairs and Research
Communication
3/28/2012 54