Returns of research funding are maximised in media visibility for excellent institutes

This paper investigates public communication activity across research institutes with varying levels of excellence in research, and how competitive funding affects this activity. With competing funding trends requiring plans for public engagement in the funded research, a question arising is whether institutes capturing higher amounts of funding return the most value for public communication. Using international data from N = 1550 institutes in six countries, we first compare public communication activity among excellent and less-than-excellent institutes. We then investigate the relationship between competitive funding and public communication across levels of excellence. We find that the returns of funding are maximised in media interactions in excellent institutes when compared to the less excellent, but not in public events. This suggests that returns of research funding may not result in the expected outcomes for increased ‘public engagement in science’ if institutions are guided by instrumental goals

An analysis of the UK public for space exploration

This article presents the results of a survey carried out at two space outreach events in the UK aimed at characterising “the public for space exploration” and measuring public support for space exploration. Attitude towards space exploration and policy preferences were used as measures of public support. The sample involved 744 respondents and was mainly composed of adults between 25 and 45 years old, with men slightly over-represented compared with women. Findings revealed that males appeared to be stronger supporters than females – men had a more positive attitude towards space exploration and stronger space policy preferences. Because mixed groups tend to come together to such events we argue that male respondents would be more likely to be part of the “attentive” and “interested” public who come to outreach activities and bring a less interested public with them

Bustling public communication by astronomers around the world driven by personal and contextual factors

Astronomers have a long tradition of outreach to satisfy public enthusiasm about stars and the Universe. Anecdotal evidence shows that astronomers love to popularize 1 , and their efforts reach millions around the world 2,3 . Yet no systematic comparisons of these activities may be performed without robust evidence. The general literature on scientists’ outreach finds barriers that discourage outreach, such as lack of fun, time, skills or recognition, or the perception that it lies outside of the professional role 4 and is a risk to reputation—the ‘Carl Sagan effect’. It also finds that outreach is generally more frequent among the most senior and academically productive male scientists 5–7 . Here, we present a study of n = 2,587 members of the International Astronomical Union with a 30% response rate. This is the largest systematic study of astronomers’ outreach activities beyond local case studies 8–10 , which reveals how these factors compare within this community and in different research systems and environments. We show regional variations of outreach activity, with higher activity among astronomers in South America and Africa, and find that personal factors are important, yet contextual factors matter too. Among astronomers, gender, rewards and fear of peer criticism do not matter. Future research should focus on explanatory factors inherent to the ecology of scientific work, to better understand what drives scientists within their specific cultural and research environments

Public communication by climate scientists: what, with whom and why?

Public communication of science has increasingly been recognised as a responsibility of scientists (Leshner, Science p. 977, 2003). Climate scientists are often reminded of their responsibility to participate in the public climate debate and to engage the public in meaningful conversations that contribute to policy-making (Fischhoff 2013). However, our understanding about climate scientists’ interactions with the public and the factors that drive or inhibit them is at best limited. In a new study, we show that it is the most published and not necessarily the most senior, which often talk in public, and it is primarily intrinsic motivation (as opposed to extrinsic reward), which drive them to engage in public communication. Political orientations, academic productivity and awareness of controversy, the topic raises in the public domain, were also important determinants of a climate’s scientist public activity. Future research should explore what is required to protect the intrinsic motivation of scientists

The communication function of universities: is there a place for science communication?

This article offers a view on the emerging practice of managing external relations of the modern university, and the role of science communication in this. With a representative sample of research universities in four countries, we seek to broaden our understanding of the science communication (SC) function and its niche within the modern university. We distinguish science communication from corporate communication functions and examine how they distribute across organisational levels. We find that communication functions can be represented along a spectrum of (de)centralisation: public relations and marketing activities are more likely carried out at the central level (central offices), and public affairs and SC activities are more likely carried out at decentral levels (e.g. in specific offices and/or research institutes, departments). This study shows that little attention is paid to science communication at central structures, suggesting that it is not a practice that aligns easily with university corporate communication, yet SC might find its niche increasingly in decentral locations of activity

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

Public communication at research universities: moving towards (de)centralised communication of science?

This research note reports empirical observations on public communication of research institutes within universities, using data from an international quantitative study in eight countries (N = 2030). The note aims to contribute to discussions on the role of science communication at research universities. We observe growing science communication at the institute level, which indicates, at a first glance, a trend towards decentralised communication of science. We argue that these might be places where science communication and public engagement can thrive. Rather than claiming to be conclusive, our goal here is to stimulate discussion on the ongoing changes in the organisational science communication landscape, and the consequences it may have for practice

In science we trust: the effects of information sources on COVID-19 risk perceptions

The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of sources of information on COVID-19 risk perceptions. Using data from a representative sample of the Portuguese population (N = 1,411) collected early in the pandemic, we find that while media sources were more frequently used, scientific sources played a more important role on perceived personal and societal-level risks; higher trust in scientific sources associated with increased risk perceptions (i.e., amplified perceived risk), trust in social media associated with dismissing personal threat (i.e., attenuated perceived risk). These findings suggest that people’s relations with science were determinant factors in risk perceptions, and dimensions that measure these deserve further investigation

An emerging “arms race”: resourcing the public communication effort

In this chapter, we observe the roll out of public communication of research institutes in the light of the medialisation hypothesis, for which we specify the arms race model (ARPC, arms race for public communication). We do this by examining relationships between the allocation of resources to public communication and the level of competition between universities and between research institutes. Using data on resources allocated and indicators of competition, we examine whether the statistical findings are consistent with an arms race in public communication. We are comparing data from eight countries (Brazil, the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, and Germany; from N=2,030 research institutes) across six areas of research (Natural Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Medicine and Health Sciences, Agriculture, Social Sciences, and Humanities). The results suggest that there is an arms race for public communication, in some fields and countries more so than in others. We end with some speculation about a dawning era of ‘Baroque’ science communication’ in the consequences of this competition