Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics

Strategic science communicators need to select tactics that can help them achieve both their short-term communication objectives and long-term behavioral goals. However, little previous research has sought to develop theory aimed at understanding what makes it more likely that a communicator will prioritize specific communication tactics. The current study aims to advance the development of a theory of strategic science communication as planned behavior based on the Integrated Behavioral Model. It does so in the context of exploring Canadian scientists’ self-reported willingness to prioritize six different tactics as a function of attitudinal, normative, and efficacy beliefs. The results suggest that scientists’ beliefs about ethicality, norms, response efficacy, and self-efficacy, are all meaningful predictors of willingness to prioritize specific tactics. Differences between scientists in terms of demographics and related variables provide only limited benefit in predicting such willingness

Nano-scientists as Consumers and Sources of Information about Nanoethics

To address the communication gap between nano-scientists and ethicists, nano-scientists’ ethical information seeking and sharing behavior are examined. Drawing on Ethics Position Theory (EPT) and Planned Risk Information Seeking Model (PRISM), this study seeks to profile ethical practices among nano-scientists and identify predictors for ethical information seeking and sharin

Expectancies and Motivations to Attend an Informal Science Lecture Series

This study explored the expectancies and motivations that prompt audiences to attend a university science lecture series. The series features talks by science experts from the host campus and around the USA. Each lecture typically attracts between 300 and 600 attendees, including middle and high school student groups, university students, and families and adults from the area. We conducted 47 semi-structured interviews with attendees in order to evaluate their expectancies and motivations. A template analysis of the interviews was grounded in social cognitive and self-determination theories. Results suggest that participants were mostly driven by intrinsic motivations and acquired strong sensory outcome expectancies, such as novelty and activity. Participants also held physical outcome expectancies, such as social expectancies, though to a lesser extent. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to attend the lecture series were associated with expectancies held prior to the event. Of those expectancies, the novelty, entertainment, and social outcomes were dominant. Other noteworthy outcome expectancies include status and self-reactivity. Parents and teachers held outcome expectancies, not only for themselves, but also for their children and students who attended the talks with them. Keywords: Informal science education; Motivations; Outcome expectancies; Self-determination theory; Social cognitive theory Introduction Building science literacy in public can ensure that citizens around the world are able to have meaningful and productive discussions about science, related policy, and societal implications Research on science education suggests that one way to bridge gaps in literacy is to better engage learners not only in classrooms, but also in such informal settings as public talks, museums, and broadcast programming To date, research on informal science learning has focused primarily on enjoyment and learning outcomes This study has implications for informal science education. In particular, it can demonstrate the use of social scientific methods to evaluate informal science education and inform strategies to promote community engagement. Literature Review Informal Science Learning Informal science learning can be distinguished from formal, or classroom, science learning in a number of ways. For example, informal science learning is more spontaneous and lacks an authority figure and the structure of a formal classroom settings and include exposure to and interaction with science through the media, museums, community events, science and nature centers, after-school programs, public lectures, and other informal venues (McCallie et al., 2009). In such 'freechoice' environments (Falk, Donovan, & Woods, 2001), personal relevance, meaningfulness, and curiosity motivate engagement Advocates of informal science education argue that outreach efforts should emphasize free choice and debunk educational approaches that focus on knowledge deficits in need of correction. Free-choice models encourage learners to explore, reflect, be critical, and engage with science in a personally meaningful way Theoretical Framework The theories guiding this effort are Self-determination theory. SDT describes two categories of behavioral motivation: intrinsic motivations, which originate within the individual and include enjoyment and interest, and extrinsic motivations, which originate externally and include social expectations and rewards Intrinsic motivation is the most self-determined, arising when an individual feels competent and autonomous. Intrinsic motivation is seen as integral to learning and creativity, while extrinsic motivation is characterized as less effective toward those ends Informal Science Expectations and Motivations 3 needs, interests, goals, abilities, and cultural background Social cognitive theory. SCT seeks to explain the cognitive and social predictors of behavior, including expected outcomes Bandura (1997) further separates outcome expectancies into sensory and physical incentives. Sensory incentives include novel sensations such as new experiences, activity incentives such as enjoyment, and self-reaction incentives such as personal norming. Physical incentives include social expectancies such as engaging with others, status expectancies such as gaining prestige, and monetary expectancies such as receiving money. In this way, these expectancies align with intrinsic (more sensory) and extrinsic (more physical) motivations. Efficacy expectancies are often explained as self-efficacy, which is people's belief in their ability to plan and execute a particular course of action (Bandura, 1997). The perception of being highly efficacious in performing a task can motivate sufficient levels of effort to achieve a successful outcome. For instance, SCT holds that learners' perceptions of self-efficacy affect their engagement in learning tasks Research Questions. In the current study, we use both theories (SDT and SCT) to explore intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and outcome and efficacy expectancies for engaging in informal science learning. This study is intentionally exploratory, employing an open-ended, intensive interview protocol. As a consequence, we do not pose theory-driven hypotheses; rather, we ask a number of research questions that were shaped though our consideration of relevant published research prior to data collection. Methods The purpose of this exploratory research effort was to learn more about audience motivations and expectations for attending hot science cool talks (HSCT), an informal science lecture series, at the University of Texas at Austin. We decided on semi-structured telephone interviews to allow audience members to describe the talks in their own words. Prior to conducting interviews, the research team attended a few lectures in order to understand the structure and format of the lecture series and to develop relevant interview questions. The interview schedule was developed across multiple meetings with the research team to ensure that it was easy to understand and would elicit adequate information related to key variables from SDT and SCT. The final protocol included 50 questions and probes intended to elicit demographic information, general information about lecture attendance (e.g. distance traveled, parking, etc.), motivations to attend the lecture series, and expectancies of lecture series outcomes. Below we describe HSCT in more depth, as well as our recruitment methods. HSCT Series HSCT was founded in 1999 by the environmental science institute (ESI) at the University of Texas at Austin as a free lecture series. There are typically three lectures per semester, each of which includes hands-on pre-lecture activities, the featured lecture, and teacher workshops. The pre-lecture activities are designed to encourage audience members to explore and reflect on issues related to the lecture topics. Examples of which include constructing and launching a paper rocket and exploring macro-invertebrates with magnifying glasses. The activities are planned and hosted by graduate and undergraduate science students along with faculty and professionals from state and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. The teacher workshops are offered for continuing education credits to K-12 science teachers. HSCT organizers generally target K-12 students and educators, parent/guardians, and the general public through sending out promotional posters to the city schools and advertising through community postal mail and email listservs. The organizers also submit public service announcement requests to local broadcast media organizations, and post the information on free online community platforms, along with their own social media channels. Moreover, HSCT have increasingly included more and better ways to reach underserved communities. For instance, Title 1 schools (schools with a large low-income student population) make up a large portion of HSCT promotional efforts. The organizers also offer transportation reimbursements for Title 1 schools that bring buses with large groups of students and community members to HSCT. On the language and ethnicity fronts, HSCT have recently (beginning Fall 2013) initiated a bilingual Spanish/English Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) outreach program targeting schools with large Hispanic and/or Spanish-speaking student populations, which also happen to be primarily Title 1 schools. For this new initiative, speakers visit schools directly to give bilingual presentations of HSCT topics. In general, these are preview presentations, designed Informal Science Expectations and Motivations 5 to attract Spanish speakers to the talks, and teachers and administrators are informed then about the transportation reimbursement for buses coming to HSCT. The featured lectures are held in a large lecture hall to accommodate the 300-600 attendees typical to each event (number based on 2014) and to make use of up-todate classroom technology. In the events where more people show up than the capacity of the lecture hall, overflow rooms are used to broadcast the lectures on screens for the audiences. Lecturers wear microphones and have two large projection screens to display lecture slides. In addition, a university website hosts live and archived webcasts of the lectures. Following the talk, audience members in the lecture hall and those watching the webcast can engage with the lecturer in a question-and-answer session. The lectures cover myriad topics ranging from the history and future of whales, to the spread of human diseases, to the exploration of Mars by an automated rover. Lecturers are recruited from across the USA and are chosen for the attractiveness of their topic, their ability to communicate their topic effectively to a large lay audience, and their reputation for being at the cutting edge of their research discipline. It is worth mentioning that the organizing institute works with the speakers to hear a practice talk and makes suggestions for better reaching the lay audience and improving or simplifying visual aids. The typical audience is 40% 6-12th grade students, teachers, and parents of students; 40% university instructors and undergraduate and graduate students; and 20% general public (For more information on HSCT, see Recruitment We recruited interviewees at a lecture in September 2011, handing out recruitment postcards, speaking with attendees in person, and making an announcement before the start of the talk. As an incentive to participate, we offered the best-selling popular science book, 'Good Germs, Bad Germs'. Out of the roughly 400 people who attended the lecture, 78 volunteered to be interviewed for our study. Within one week of recruitment, we sent follow-up emails that contained the IRB-approved consent form and a request to schedule the interview for a specific date and time. We completed 47 interviews in October 2011; the remaining 31 volunteers either did not qualify to participate because they were under 18 or they no longer wished to participate. All interviews were conducted within four weeks from viewing the lecture from which they were recruited. Participants were predominantly female (n ¼ 32), ranged in age from 18 to 77 (M ¼ 46.9) years, and were highly educated, with almost 90% reporting having earned a university degree. Most participants (70%) reported their before-tax household income to be greater than $50,000. All participants had taken at least one science class in high school and/or college. Finally, six of the participants were teachers who taught middle or high school classes. For reasons of privacy and confidentiality, we use pseudonyms when attributing statements to participants. The interviews averaged 30 minutes and were recorded with consent. Recordings were professionally transcribed prior to analysis. Although our non-probability sampling method does not yield generalizable data, it does allow for a closer look at individual audience members' expectancies and motivations for attendance. 6 N. AbiGhannam et al. Data Analysis We analyzed the interviews using a deductive and inductive qualitative approach. As mentioned above, coding was guided by theory, but we were open to emerging themes and interpretations derived from the data themselves. The theories served as the basis for template analysis, which uses predefined codes (e.g. theoretical concepts) to guide analysis as we portioned the data into meaningful pieces of information to reveal patterns and themes (see Consistent with SCT, we coded responses to 'before you started to attend the talks, what were you hoping to get out of them?' using six categories of outcome expectancies: novelty, activity, self-reactivity, social, status, and monetary. Additional prompts elicited more information on each of those expectancies. Consistent with SDT, we coded responses to 'Why do you attend the talks?' looking for evidence of intrinsic motivation (e.g. interest or enjoyment) and extrinsic motivation (e.g. separable outcomes, such as school credit, meeting people, and talking to scientists). During the first round of coding, the lead researcher read through the responses and coded the interviews using the theory-based codes. In instances where the data did not fit any of the codes developed from theory, the researcher developed new codes from the data and added them to the code sheet. New codes that emerged included the expectancies of engaging in a college-level education, expectancies of connecting with college campus life, being motivated by the interest of a friend or family member, being motivated by the desire to expose kids to science, and other similarly nuanced expectancies and motivations. Refining the coding scheme in this manner is consistent with template analysis (see King, 2004, p. 259). Prior to the second round of coding, the lead researcher met with the rest of the team to explain and seek feedback on the coding schematic. After those meetings, the same researcher again coded the data using the initial template codes with the emergent codes added. These codes in combination served as the basis of our thematic analysis, where codes represent explicit ideas derived from the data and themes refer to more subtle processes (Rossman & Rallis, 2003, p. 282). Throughout coding, the researcher took analytic notes that further helped to track common and distinct themes within and among interviews. These notes assisted in organizing the findings of the study. Results General Experience with the Talks The interview schedule opened with questions and prompts intended to gather information about participants' general experiences with the talks. Those questions allowed us to answer RQ1, which inquires about the general experiences that Informal Science Expectations and Motivations 7 people have with informal HSCT. When asked where they learned about the talks, most said that it was family or friends, their children's schools, university emails, or calendar listings in a local paper. Attendance to the series ranged from one lecture (40%) to having attended more than 20 lectures over the years (17%). About 60% of the interviewees had been to two or more lectures. Some had been coming back since the talks started in 1999. Most of the lectures were attended in person. About one-fourth said that they had also seen a talk online. We asked participants about how were the talks compared to other science learning they experienced in formal schooling. Overall, the participants indicated that the talks were more interesting and entertaining. In particular, they said that the talks were more laid back, easier to follow and understand, and they covered a broader range of topics. This speaks to the deliberately informal quality of the series, as well as the diversity of the invited speakers and topics they bring to their audience. Most participants attended the talks with others, including friends, family members, or students. About one-fourth said that they attended with their children. Some participants said that attending the talks was their own idea, while others said that attending was the idea of their friends or family, or they attended to get extra credit for school. The time participants traveled to get to the talks ranged between a few minutes (those who live on campus) to about 60 minutes. Parking was one consideration for some of the participants before attending the talks. The topics of the talks were also important considerations for the participants to determine whether or not they attend the talks. Participants said that sometimes the talks coincided with other commitments they had on Friday nights, but they said that it is good that the sponsor of the series sends out the schedule of the talks at the beginning of the year so they can plan ahead. Participants said that the talks inspired them to think more about different science topics and increased their scientific knowledge. Moreover, they said that they are more aware of science research at the university level, especially at the particular university where the talks take place, and they feel more connected to researchers and to the science community through the talks. Some participants said that they even introduced themselves after the talks to the researchers. Among the participants, all those who are teachers said that they attend the prelecture workshops and they use materials from those workshops in their classrooms (CDs, lesson plans, etc.). However, they felt that the talks did not necessarily help their school develop ties with the university. For participants who attended with children, they said that their children learned a lot from the talks and the talks have increased their interest in science and inspired them to seek science careers in the future. Returning to RQ1, we have found participants to have very positive experiences with the talks and to think that such programs are important to society. They stated that such talks can improve the scientific literacy of people and that it is important for everyone to stay current on science and technology. All participants said that they are planning to attend more talks in the future. Informal Science Expectations and Motivations 9 Motivations to Attend the Talks Our second research question inquires about the extent to which people are self-determined to attend informal science lecture series. In order to answer RQ2, we needed to understand how intrinsically or extrinsically motivated were the attendants of HSCT. Early in the interview, we asked participants about their motivations to attend the talks. Analysis focused on mentions of intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivations. Although some participants described extrinsic motivations, the majority of the participants expressed intrinsic motivations driving their participation in the talks (58%). I just wanted to know, it sounded interesting. I like to keep up with things that are going on now, everything's moving so fast and I don't go to class anymore so I don't really hear a lot about developments in science and I'm always interested in things like that. (Annie, 72 years old, holds a Ph.D.) Another participant described the joy and excitement she gets from attending the talks. She said: It's a thrill to be exposed to somebody who is an expert on a topic and have that person explain that topic to me in terms I understand, as a complete novice on the topics . . . [Also], it's really neat to be on the campus . . . The whole college vibe that you pick up when you wander around the campus is just great . . . it opens up the university to anybody in the public . . . And I like being around kids so it's neat in the audience to Extrinsic motivations included receiving school credit for the self or a family member, socializing with the science community, having quality time with friends and family, being on a university campus, exposing kids to science, and exposing kids to higher education. For teachers, extrinsic motivations related to getting help with teaching and to gain continuing education credits. Although extrinsic motivations were mentioned less often, it was common for participants to mention both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that drive them to attend the talks. For instance, participants would attend for a personal interest, as well as wanting to expose their kids to an experience on a college campus, meet other people who share their interests, and for other extrinsic reasons. For instance, encouraging children to start learning about college was a common motivation among participants. One participant said: There were lots of reasons . . . We are starting to encourage [our son] for higher education, getting him on campus as a form of encouragement, taking his interest more in science, it was a great evening out for both of us, we had some good quality time and then when we got there, we saw that other families were doing it as well so I think that really kind of encouraged him. (Matilda, 49 years old, holds a high school degree) In this case, motivation comes from a family member's interest and encouragement to attend the talks. A second example below describes how one person is generally interested in science and the talks, but his wife's interest is what motivates him to go: My wife actually was a science major and in a way it was her ideato start doing this and she has always been fascinated with science. I've always been generally fascinated with science; she was the originator of it. She always gives me the choice of wanting to attend or not, and I know

Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their 'going public' is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media-less so through new media channels-and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility

Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists' report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public's trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences

Hierarchical regressions: factors associated with scientists’ prioritization of 5 types of online communication objectives for public engagement.

<p>Hierarchical regressions: factors associated with scientists’ prioritization of 5 types of online communication objectives for public engagement.</p

Scientists’ prioritization of five communication objectives for online public engagement (1 = lowest priority, 7 = highest priority).

<p>Scientists’ prioritization of five communication objectives for online public engagement (1 = lowest priority, 7 = highest priority).</p

Microbiologists’ Public Engagement Views and Behaviors

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

Nano-scientists as Consumers and Sources of Information about Nanoethics

To address the communication gap between nano-scientists and ethicists, nano-scientists’ ethical information seeking and sharing behavior are examined. Drawing on Ethics Position Theory (EPT) and Planned Risk Information Seeking Model (PRISM), this study seeks to profile ethical practices among nano-scientists and identify predictors for ethical information seeking and sharing</p