• Phone interviews (n = 24) were completed during the fall of 2014.

• Snowball sampling and Internet searches used to compile a list of people involved in science/risk communication training in the U.S. and Canada.

• The interview protocol initially asked trainers what types of goals they thought scientists had for their communication efforts• Also, the degree to which the training they

provided emphasized skills versus specific goals or objectives.

• Also, their views about a subset of potential communication objectives.

• All the interviews were transcribed. • Qualitative data analysis by first author.• Denotes coding categories focused on in the results.

• Current science/risk training focuses largely on helping scientists become skilled at clear, engaging communication (i.e., journalism type training).• Limited focus on helping scientists set evidence-

based communication objectives that might help them achieve their goals (i.e., strategy training)

• This sub-project was the initial phase of a NSF-funded project that will involve surveying up to 10,000K scientists about their views on science/risk communication.• Primary focus on behavior + objectives + goals• Surveys with American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Chemical Society, and the American Society for Microbiology now complete, additional surveys planned.

• We used initial interviews to better understand how science communication trainers think about communication objectives and goals.

• Underlying the focus was a question about the degree to which science communication training focuses on

(a) building journalism-type skills (e.g. clear writing/speaking); versus

(b) the strategic selection of specific communication objectives (e.g., changes in trust or how people frame issues) that communication research suggests might help achieve scientists’ long-term communication goals (e.g., support for policy).

• The study focused on science/risk communication training because such training is a central way that communication research is made available to scientists serving as communicators.

BACKGROUND

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Appendix

This poster reports the results of 24 qualitative interviews conducted in fall 2014 with science/risk communication trainers to better understand how they address goal setting in their work. The results suggest that trainers believe the scientists they train want help achieving a range of personal and societal goals. Personal goals were primarily related to career while societal goals were primarily related to ensuring that science is part of decision-making related to health or environmental risk (e.g., climate change, or vaccines). Interviews also indicated that the training being offered rarely explicitly addresses what intermediate objectives might allow scientists’ to achieve their overall goals. Suggestions for training practice were made.

ABSTRACT

Qualitative Interviews with Science and Risk Communication Trainers about Communication GoalsJohn C. Besley, Ph.D.Michigan State University

Anthony D. Dudo, Ph.D.University of Texas

Shupei YuanMichigan State University

Niveen Abi Ghannam, Ph.D.University of Texas

Origin of Scientists’ Communication Goals (RQ1)• The trainers interviewed almost all indicated that

they encouraged scientists to set their own goals.

Scientists’ Long-term Communications Goals (RQ2)• PERSONAL goals appear to include issues related

to a scientist’s desire to realize PERSONAL BENEFITS and pursue larger SOCIETAL BENEFITS as part of her/his career.

• For SOCIETAL factors, the central goals appear to be desire for government decision-makers to make general or specific policy decisions that are consistent with scientific evidence.

number of respondents also emphasized the importance of recognizing the SPECIFIC VALUE OF

Table 1. Final list of coding categories for interviews

“I want them to be thinking about this question of are they being critical or are they being advocate? Are they being message-oriented?” (Interview 1).

“… [F]unding is extremely competitive ... [scientists know] to get that funding, they need to be able to explain … what they do and why it's important” (Interview 11).

“[I love to] give talks to general audiences because if I do a good job … they love me to death (Interview 12, on his own engagement)

“[If scientists] are going to see science not only survive … but thrive, they are going to have to become articulate advocates for why science is important …” (Interview 17).

[A] lot of people are unhappy with policy and the failure to use what scientists think they know in setting policy and taking action, when it comes to climate change, vaccination, and a whole host of things like that (Interview 12).

Views about communication objectives (RQ3)• As might be expected, there was unanimity that

scientists could, should, and would seek to INCREASE KNOWLEDGE as the primary goal of communication.

• Trainers generally appeared to recognize, however, ‘deficit model’ evidence regard the week correlation between knowledge and attitudes.

• The trainers interviewed had mixed views about the degree to which the scientists they train would to prioritize FOSTERING EXCITEMENT

• Trainers were mixed on the degree to which they felt that the scientists they train would be comfortable with making BUILDING TRUST.

• Few trainers said that trust building was an issue they emphasize.

• Trainers were also mixed on the value of trained scientists in FRAMING ISSUES to resonate with audiences.

• Concern about being seen as trying to persuade

We don’t really talk about it at all because it’s implied [that] if they’re signing up for a science communication class, we assume they’re enthusiastic about communicating science (Interview 6).

Yes: “establishing yourself as a person who they can relate to”No: “picking and choosing tidbits to present in a way that makes it seems like you share their values” (Interview 8)

We try to make it clear that we're not advocating for … framing because … they feel like they're being told they should spin things and somehow immorally manipulate people into thinking a certain way (Interview 8)

1

2

3

3

2

1

Appe

ndix

Fig

ure.

Log

ic m

odel

for p

ath

from

ta

ctics

to g

oals

for s

cien

ce/r

isk c

omm

unic

ation

Thank you to Sharon Dunwoody, Bruce Lewenstein, and Meena Selvakumar (advisory panel) for their guidance on this work.

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.