Scientists' views about communication objectives

被引:92
作者
Besley, John C. [1 ]
Dudo, Anthony [2 ]
Yuan, Shupei [3 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Publ Relat, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Univ Texas Austin, Stan Richards Sch Advertising & Publ Relat, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[3] Michigan State Univ, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
communication training; science communication; strategic communication; survey; theory of planned behavior; SCIENCE COMMUNICATION; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; MASS-MEDIA; TRUST; MEDIALIZATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PARTICIPATION; FAIRNESS; WORK; RISK;
D O I
10.1177/0963662517728478
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
This study looks at how United States-based academic scientists from five professional scientific societies think about eight different communication objectives. The degree to which scientists say they would prioritize these objectives in the context of face-to-face public engagement is statistically predicted using the scientists' attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs, as well as demographics and past communication activity, training, and past thinking about the objectives. The data allow for questions about the degree to which such variables consistently predict views about objectives. The research is placed in the context of assessing factors that communication trainers might seek to reshape if they wanted get scientists to consider choosing specific communication objectives.
引用
收藏
页码:708 / 730
页数:23
相关论文
共 73 条
  • [41] Cultural cognition of scientific consensus
    Kahan, Dan M.
    Jenkins-Smith, Hank
    Braman, Donald
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2011, 14 (02) : 147 - 174
  • [42] Kendall R.L., 1992, Public relations campaign strategies: Planning for implementation
  • [43] Popularization by Argentine researchers: the activities and motivations of CONICET scientists
    Kreimer, Pablo
    Levin, Luciano
    Jensen, Pablo
    [J]. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, 2011, 20 (01) : 37 - 47
  • [44] VOICE, CONTROL, AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE - INSTRUMENTAL AND NONINSTRUMENTAL CONCERNS IN FAIRNESS JUDGMENTS
    LIND, EA
    KANFER, R
    EARLEY, PC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 59 (05) : 952 - 959
  • [45] Give the public the tools to trust scientists
    Makri, Anita
    [J]. NATURE, 2017, 541 (7637) : 261 - 261
  • [46] Fairness and Nanotechnology Concern
    McComas, Katherine A.
    Besley, John C.
    [J]. RISK ANALYSIS, 2011, 31 (11) : 1749 - 1761
  • [47] McNutt M., 2016, 2016 ANN LECT ANN PU
  • [48] Can Science Communication Workshops Train Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement? The ESConet Experience
    Miller, Steve
    Fahy, Declan
    [J]. SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2009, 31 (01) : 116 - 126
  • [49] Montano D.E., 2015, Health behavior: Theory, research and practice
  • [50] A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change
    Myers, Teresa A.
    Nisbet, Matthew C.
    Maibach, Edward W.
    Leiserowitz, Anthony A.
    [J]. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2012, 113 (3-4) : 1105 - 1112