AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about Engagment

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 14241214-421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

AAAS Members Views about Science Communication Goals and Objectives In the context of …

Face-to-Face Communication Online Communication Mediated Communication

Strategy

Project goals and background

Survey Findings: Past behavior, Willingness, Goals, and Objectives

Implications and future research

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.”

Lévy-Leblond, 1992

Our data …

AAAS members with Ph.D. and at a U.S. university(n = ~1050, 9% response rate)

Age: 61 (SE = .38)Male: 69%Field: • Biology-Medical Science: 53%• Physics/Astrology: 11%• Social Science: 10%• Geological Science: 7%• Engineering: 6%• Computer

Science/Mathematics: 5%

Funding: • NSF: 36%• NIH: 33%• NGO: 26%• Other federal: 24%• Industry: 19% • Other: 11%• DOD: 8%

Science Public Engagement as “Planned Behavior”

Attitudes about engagement/engagement audiences

Descriptive and injunctive norms about engagement

Efficacy beliefs about engagement

Willingness to engage / Priorities for Engagement Engagement

• Past research has focused on predicting the engagement amount

• Current research is focused on predicting prioritization of specific engagement objectivesPrimary Research Question:

To what degree are attitudes, norms, and efficacy associated with views about engagement?

Are AAAS members engaging?

Face-to-Face

Direct

Online

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

14Never Once 2-5 times 6-11 times

About once a month Multiple times per month Once a week or more

“To start, about how often have you engaged with the public on science in the last year?”

n = ~1050

AAAS scientists are engaging, with F2F most common

Are AAAS members engaging?

Face-to-Face

Direct

Online

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Never Once 2-5 times 6-11 times About once a month Multiple times per month Once a week or more

“To start, about how often have you engaged with the public on science in the last year?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

18 43 27

Very negative Series2 Series3 Series4Series5 Series6 Very positive

“[H]ow negative or positive would you say your experience … was? (7-pt. scale)

M = 5.83, SE = .04

n = ~1050

Are AAAS members willing to engage?“Looking forward, how willing would you be to take part in the following types of engagement or outreach in the next 12 months?” (7-pt. scale)

Face-to-Face

Direct

Online

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not at all willing Series2 Series3Series4 Series5 Series6Very willing

M = 5.64, SE = .05

M = 5.14, SE = .05

M = 5.26, SE = .05

M = 3.99, SE = .05

n = ~1050

AAAS scientists are willing to engage (online is least popular)

Quantity vs. Quality?

What SOCIETAL goals do AAAS scientists prioritize?“What are the most important or unimportant PERSONAL goals that scientists such as yourself should have when …” (Very Low/Very high Importance)?

Getting policy makers to use scientific evidence

Helping ensure our culture values science

Helping people use science to make better personal decisions

Obtaining adequate funding for scientific research

Getting more young people to choose scientific careers

Helping to diversify the STEM workforce

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

OnlineMediaFace-to-Face

Policy choice and culture of science highest priorities

n = ~1050

What SOCIETAL goals do AAAS scientists prioritize?“What are the most important or unimportant PERSONAL goals that scientists such as yourself should have when …” (7-pt. scale: Very Low-Very high Importance)?

Increasing the impact of research

Fulfilling a sense of duty to society

Personal enjoyment

Meeting other scientists

Obtaining research funding

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Increasing impact and sense of duty high priorities

n = ~1050

But “objectives” come first …

What communication objectives do the scientists prioritize?“[W]hat are the most important or unimportant communication objectives that scientists such as yourself should have when taking part in _____? (Very Low/Very high Importance)?

Helping to inform people about scientific issues

Getting people interested or excited about science

Defending science from those who spread falsehoods

Showing that the scientific commu-nity cares about society's well-being

Demonstrating the scientific com-munity's openness and transparency

Showing that scientists share community values

Framing research implications ... in a way that resonates with their values

Hearing what others think about scientific issues

Showing the scientific community's expertise

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Traditional goals seen as most important

n = ~1050

How ethical are the objectives?“This objective is ethical.” (Attitude)(Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)

Demonstrating the scientific community's openness and

transparencyShowing that the scientific com-munity cares about society's well-

beingHearing what others think about

scientific issues

Showing the scientific com-munity's expertise

Framing research implications ... in a way that resonates with their

values

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Some concern about framing and identification

n = ~1050

What would my peers think?“Scientists who pursue this objective would be well regarded by their peers.” (Injunctive Norm) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)

Showing that the scientific community cares about society's well-being

Demonstrating the scientific community's openness and transparency

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Most think other scientists expect priority on traditional goals

n = ~1050

What do my peers do?“My colleagues would put a high priority on this objective.” (Descriptive Norm) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Most think other scientists would put priority on traditional goals

n = ~1050

Could I accomplish this objective?“I have the skills needed to achieve this objective.” (Internal Efficacy) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Most scientists feel they have communication skills they need

n = ~1050

Is achieving this objective possible?“Achieving this objective is possible for a good communicator.” (External Efficacy) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

More concern that some goals may not be achievable

n = ~1050

Have I thought about this before?“Prior to this survey, I had thought a lot about this potential engagement objective.” (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Many of the objectives asked about were unfamiliar

n = ~1050

Modeling objectives …

n = ~1050

OLS Regression Models for Objective Importance(Standardized Betas)

n = ~1050

Very Little happening with engagement mode, demographics, field, or funding

n = ~1050

Ethical concerns, injunctive norms, external efficacy, and familiarity the most consistent predictors of communication objective prioritization

SummaryAAAS scientists …• … are willing to engage• … have positive experiences with engagement• … want to achieve social and

personal goals through engagementBut …• … most prioritize traditional communication

objectives (inform, defend, excite)• … prioritize potentially important strategic

communication objectives, a little less (e.g. showing values and listening)

Key Limitations: • One society analyzed (so far)• Low response rate (9%)• Hard to ask about goals/objectives

without suggesting goals/objectives• Hard to get scientists not to

prioritize every goal/objective

SummaryAAAS scientists …• … are willing to engage• … have positive experiences with engagement• … want to achieve social and

personal goals through engagementBut …• … most prioritize traditional communication

objectives (inform, defend, excite)• … prioritize potentially strategic communication

objectives, a little less (e.g. showing values and listening)

These are the objectives science communication scholars focus on …

Possible ImplicationsIf you want a scientist to prioritize an objective …• … make sure they know about it• … show that it’s ethical• … show that it’s valued by peers• … show that it works

AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about Engagment

Education

Introducing Digital Engagment

CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGMENT STRATEGY - WHO

Incresing ss engagment & motivation

antonina + kirk engagment

Results Flexibility Engagment Campaign @ Continental

Melissa & Chris engagment book

Emoplyee Engagment in Sbi

Canada@AAAS - Open House With Canadian Scientists

FYE 100 - Student Success & Engagment

Wp engagment

Building Engagment .pptx

Roussou Components Engagment Virtual

Alicia Key's Social Media Engagment

Civic Engagment Summit Results Slideshow (26pgs)

High Performance And Workforce Engagment

Social Media Engagment

Dada Surrealisme Engagment Absurde

0278_Market engagment VIS2a6

“On-call” Scientists An initiative of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program Jessica Wyndham, Project Director AAAS Science and Human Rights Program

SOSTAC (r) Planning & Integration & Engagment Belgium 2016 v3 sostac integration engagment