Scientists and Public Communication: A Report on NC State University Researchers’ Views of and Participation in Public Engagement Activities

0

Scientists and Public Communication: A Report on NC State University Researchers’ Views of and Participation in Public Engagement Activities

Rob Dunn, researcher and professor at NC State University is participating in Pints of Science, a science café in Raleigh Photo: Author

1

North Carolina State University - Department of Communication Independent Study in Science Communication - COM 630

A report by Santiago N. Canete under the supervision of Dr. Andrew R. Binder

MAY 8th, 2014

Scientists and Public Communication: A Report on NC State University Researchers’ Views of and Participation in Public Engagement Activities

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT, CONTACT THE AUTHOR: Santiago Nicolas Canete B. MS in Communication [email protected]

2

About this report This report emerges from data collected as part of the master’s thesis work of the author as a graduate student at North Carolina State University. It also reflects his particular interest in public communication of science and technology, specifically the views and behavior of scientists regarding public engagement (PE). Today, new scientific knowledge and technological innovations are permeating almost every aspect of our lives bringing potential risks and benefits that often represent a matter of concern and/or promising solutions to human problems. In this respect, a democratic society demands not only more information about scientific and technological topics but also participation in decisions in diverse areas such as climate change, synthetic biology, genetically modified food, nanotechnology, stem cell research, among others. In this framework, there is also a growing consensus among governments, funding agencies, and non-governmental organizations about the necessity to encourage scientists and citizens alike to discuss the social, economic and ethical implications of the advancements of our time. Thus, the participation of researchers in meaningful interactions with society is fundamental. Such interactions include talking to the media, speaking in schools, advising policy makers, writing popular articles, using social media to communicate research, and giving public talks. The study reported here seeks to contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of scientists’ engagement with non-specialists. Comprehending researchers’ attitudes, intention, participation, and factors leading to decision-making regarding public communication can be meaningful for different audiences. For the general public there is an indirect benefit, given that an effective participation of scientists in the public forum can contribute to an increased understanding of a great deal of complex topics, which in turn can lead to make better daily life decisions. Results from the study, though, are more directly beneficial at the level of universities, research organizations and funding agencies. For managers and public information officers, empirical data can help in doing a better job defining approaches to promote researchers’ involvement in communication, which is a key component of strategies to increase and maintain institutional reputation. In addition, museums, cultural and community centers, and K-12 institutions can also benefit from knowledge related to effective ways to engage the research community in the formal and informal learning processes. Finally, results should also allow scientists themselves to reflect on their perceptions and actions concerning science communication. This might involve a constant evaluation of their own role as researchers, experts, policy advisors and participants of the public sphere in today’s national and international techno-scientific scenario.

3

Data source The present report is based on data of an online survey of researchers working at North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, NC, United States. NCSU is a large land-grant public university located in a region known as the Research Triangle due to the presence of three major research universities (NCSU, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Duke University in Durham) and techno scientific companies operating from within the Research Triangle Park and elsewhere. Using the most updated publicly available database of faculty and staff (Campus Directory) at NCSU, a list of professors (all ranks), research assistants (master’s and PhD students) and postdocs currently working at every department was obtained. From a total of 4,998 researchers in the database (3,201 faculty members, 1,471 research assistants, 326 postdocs), a simple stratified random sample was drawn, resulting in a sample of 1,785 researchers (1,142 faculty members, 527 research assistants, 116 postdocs) who received an invitation email with the link to the survey. Data was collected using Qualtrics Platform during five weeks between November and December 2013. Data collection yielded 404 valid responses, which gives a response rate of 22.6%. All career stages were adequately represented: professors (55%), research assistants (32%), and postdoctoral fellows (13%) which is fairly consistent with the actual proportion of researchers at NCSU (52.6% professors, 40.2% research assistants, 7.1% postdocs). Regarding sex, 64.2% of respondents were male and 35.8% were female, which is also consistent with the actual distribution of researchers at the university (61% male, 39% female).

Defining PE: Public Engagement with Science and Technology Researchers from different disciplines, ranging from life sciences, to engineering, to humanities and social sciences, engage at some point in interactions with non-experts outside their fields and academic circles. For the purposes of the present study I defined this process of communicating with non-specialist audiences about your research or area of expertise as “public communication or public engagement” or PE, an acronym that will be frequently used throughout this report. PE includes all types of interactions that are related to researchers’ communication with non-specialists about their research, whether it focuses on science, technology and engineering or the social sciences, arts, and humanities.

4

Overview of findings

Between 80% to 90% of researchers like the idea of taking part in PE activities Six out of 10 scientists plan to participate in PE activities in the next 12 months Almost 9 out of 10 researchers (87.1%) indicated participation in at least 1 PE activity in the

past year. However, most of them keep these public communication interactions at the minimum level, judging for their responses to how many times they participated.

Men were slightly more active than women, and professors participated in significantly more activities than postdocs and research assistants

Researchers in the Social Sciences and Agricultural Sciences1 were the most active. Roughly half of the researchers in these areas (46% to 48%) participated in 5 or more types of PE activities.

Giving a public talk to non-experts, participating in a university open house day, and interacting with non-specialist publics in a science fair outside the university were the three activities most performed by NCSU researchers in the past year. Between 40% to 50% participated in these type of activities.

In the past year, 80% to 90% of researchers did not participate in an interview for TV, did not speak in a public hearing or debate on science issues, and did not guide in a science museum.

Across academic fields, giving a public talk was the most performed activity, with the exception of those in Engineering & Technology and Medical & Health Sciences, who participated more in university open houses.

Those in the Mathematics & Natural Sciences also reported high engagement with schools. Those in Agricultural Sciences reported high levels of participation in science fairs outside the university. The social scientists indicated high interactions with policy makers, and those in the Humanities reported the highest levels of writing for popular audiences.

If given the choice, scientists would prefer to give public talks, advise or collaborate with policy-makers, and write for popular audiences, the top-three overall preferred PE activities.

The majority of researchers believe that PE makes them better communicators, improves their understanding society, is enjoyable, and helps their career and reputation

Most of these researchers reject the notion that the scientific community looks down those involved in public communication and engagement activities.

Researchers expressed high levels of unawareness of whether their respective colleges have a communication/PR office, include PE in the college mission statement, require approval to speak with journalists, and allocate time for or reward participation in PE

In a hypothesis-driven, explanatory study completed as a thesis project based on these data, three factors appeared as central to stimulate scientists’ participation in PE: (a) experience, (b) liking, and (c) accountability.

1 In the Appendix section, I include the survey questions and explain the origins of the classification used for the fields of science.

5

The general affective state: Attitudes toward public engagement The majority of researchers hold positive affective evaluations of public engagement (PE). At least 8 out of 10 researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) like the idea of taking part in PE activities because they think it is beneficial, worthwhile, enjoyable, pleasant or wise. In judging six qualitative characteristics of PE, a great deal of scientists expressed the positive side of the feeling, which correspond to a “somewhat” to “extremely” positive attitude, with values ranging from 79.5% to 92.2% of survey participants. The neutral evaluations oscillated from 6.5% to 15% of respondents and included researchers holding a “neither negative nor positive” attitude. Finally, a small part of the sample of scientists indicated a “somewhat” to “extremely” negative attitude, representing 1% to 6.5% of the total. Each of the six specific affective states towards PE was measured in 7-point semantic differential scales (being 7 the positive side of the feeling), and their means were as following: Bad-Good (5.74), Unenjoyable-Enjoyable (5.40), Pointless-Worthwhile (5.74), Unpleasant-Pleasant (5.24), Foolish-Wise (5.61), Harmful-Beneficial (5.85). The general mean of attitudes for all these characteristics of public engagement for the entire sample was 5.59, which basically represents a high level of “liking” among NCSU researchers. One may imagine that these values might have variations depending on the researchers’ sex, career stage (status) or field of science2. However, the attitudinal states remain relatively similar among these different demographics groups, with mean values for attitude ranging from 5.43 to 5.89.

2 In the Appendix section, I include the survey questions and explain the origins of the classification used for the fields of science.

7.8

6.5

7.3

14.2

15

6.8

90.9

87

89

79.5

82.9

92.2

0% 50% 100%

Bad‐Good

Unenjoyable‐Enjoyable

Pointless‐Worthwhile

Unpleasant‐Pleasant

Foolish‐Wise

Harmful‐Beneficial

Percentage of respondents

Figure 1.Attitudes towards public engagement % of NCSU researchers with positive, neutral and negative feelings

Negative

Neutral

Positive

Making Asked aboPE activity reported hjudging foscale. Howresults indsomewhatvery likely communicaddition, 1and 19% sas somewhanswer.

Explorin The study level of pathe last 12Interestingresearcherparticipatelisted PE a12 monthswere slightwomen, anparticipatethan postdassistants. professorsactive in P(46%) indicin 5 or moactivities in

plans: Do

out their likelin the next

having moder a mean va

wever, lookinicates that 5 likely (23.3%(19.6%) to p

cation activit14.4% indicaaid they seehat unlikely

ng particip

also measurrticipation in months.

gly, 87.1% ofrs reported hed in at leastctivities in ths (see Table tly more actnd professored in more adocs and resJust 6.4% of

s reported noE and almoscated particire types of Pn the past ye

researche

lihood to pa12 months,

erate intentiolue of 4.82 og at the per

59% of respo%), likely (16participate inies in the neted they are

e their partic(5.9%), unlik

pation: Ho

red the n PE in

f having t 1 of 14 he last 1). Men ive than rs ctivities

search f ot being st a half ipation PE ear.

ers intend

articipate in aresearchers ons to do soon a 7-point centages,

ondents are .1%), and

n science ext year. In e undecided,ipation in PE

kely (6.9%) an

ow active a

Tab

% of respondents

Total

Sex

Male

Female

Status

Research Assista

Post‐docs

Professors

Field of Science

Mathematics & Sciences

Engineering & T

Medical & Healt

Agricultural Scie

Social Sciences

Humanities

Each column in thepercentages do no

6

d to partic

a

o,

E nd very unlik

are resear

ble 1. Level of

that are…

ants

e

Natural

Technology

th Sciences

ences

Figure Likelih% of NCS

e table represents resot sum to 100% becau

ipate in P

kely (6.2%). A

rchers in P

f PE activity a

Not active in PE Acttyp

12.9%

10.2%

16.7%

20.2%

21.1%

6.4%

16.5%

17.6%

11.5%

10.7%

5.8%

4.4%

Likely59%

Did not answer8%

2. hood to particSU researchers expres

sponses to one or moruse of the aggregatio

PE in the n

A portion of

PE activitie

mong NCSU r

ctive in at least 1 pe of PE activity

Activtypes

87.1% 5

89.8% 5

83.3% 5

79.8% 4

78.9% 4

93.6% 6

83.5% 5

82.4% 5

88.5% 7

89.3% 6

94.0% 6

95.6% 3

U

cipate in PE nessing intention of par

re categories from thn of responses from m

ext year?

f 7.6% did no

es?

researchers

ve in at least 3 of PE activities

Activtypes

57.6% 3

58.8% 3

56.8% 3

44.5% 2

42.1% 2

69.3% 4

51.6% 2

51.8% 2

73.1% 3

66.2% 4

69.6% 4

34.8% 2

Unlikely19%

Undecided14%

ext yearrticipation

e survey question. Romultiple response cat

ot

ve in at least 5 of PE activities

35.9%

38.1%

33.3%

25.2%

21.1%

46.0%

29.7%

28.2%

38.5%

46.1%

47.8%

26.1%

ow tegories.

7

Furthermore, researchers in the Social Sciences, Agricultural Sciences and Medical & Health Sciences reported participation in more PE activities than those in other fields of science and technology. Results indicate that 69% to 73.1% of scientists in those fields participated in 3 or more PE activities, and 38.5% to 47.8% were active in 5 or more types of PE activities. The fact that 87% of respondents said they participated in one or more science communication activities in the past year can be considered a good rate of participation, but if we look at the intensity of this participation (how many times in the past year), the mean value for participation (M=1.51, in a 5-point scale) suggests that many researchers have participated just one time in the activities they reported.

What type of communication activities are actually done more often? Regardless of a low intensity of participation in general, there are specific types of activities researchers performed with more or less frequency. Giving a public talk to non-experts was reported as the activity researchers participated most in the past year, followed in the top-five by participating in a university open house day, interacting with non-specialists in a science fair, talking to children and teenagers in schools and being interviewed for newspapers or magazines, all of which were done by nearly 40% to 50% of researchers. The least frequent types of interactions were serving as a guide in a science museum, speaking in a debate about a science issue, being interviewed on a TV program, and being interviewed on a radio show, all of which were performed by just 10% to 20% of respondents (See ranking in Table 2). On the one hand, except for being interviewed for newspaper or magazines, the top-five activities correspond to direct interactions with the general public. On the other hand, except for serving as a guide in a science museum, the bottom-five activities primarily refer to mediated interactions (interviews, advising NGO) and potentially controversial events (debate).

Table 2. Ranking PE activities by level of participation % of respondents who participated one or more times in the listed activities during the past year is indicated

1. Giving a public talk to non‐experts 53.7 %

2. Participating in a university open house day (e.g. inviting student groups or the general public) 42.6 %

3. Interacting with non‐specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside the university 40.1 %

4. Talking to children and teenagers in schools 38.9 %

5. Being interviewed for a newspaper or magazine 38.6 %

6. Communicating about your research to non‐expert publics via online social media 36.1 %

7. Advising or collaborated with policy‐makers 34.7 %

8. Writing for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines) 43.9 %

9. Drafting a press release 29.0 %

10. Advising or collaborated with NGO 28.7 %

11. Being interviewed on a radio program or podcast 19.6 %

12. Being interviewed on a TV program / News 18.1 %

13. Speaking in a public hearing/debate about scientific issues 17.1 %

14. Serving as guide in a science center or museum 10.9 %

8

A finer understanding of participation levels is provided in Table 3. For example, it is observed the top ranked activity “Giving a public talk to non-experts” was performed at least once in the last 12 months by half of respondents (49.4%), 20% did it 2 or 3 times, and 11.6% participated in this type of communication 4 or more times. In respect to social media 32% of the sample indicated participation in this type of interaction, but 6 out of 10 scientists (63.9%) reported themselves not active online during the past year, at least for the purpose of communicating about their research to non-expert publics. Furthermore, there are PE activities in which a great deal (80 to 90%) of researchers were inactive in the past year. For instance, 89.1% did not serve as a guide in a science center, 82.9% did not participate in public hearings or debates about scientific issues, 81.9% were not interviewed for the TV, and 80.4% were not interviewed for the radio. In Table 3, the 14 PE activities were also classified together into six major categorical groups based on their similarities.

Table 3. Intensity of participation in PE activities in the past year % of NCSU researchers who participated in specific interactions is indicated

Category Activity Never Once 2 or 3 times

4 or 5 times

6 or more times

Did not answer

Being Interviewed by the media

Being interviewed for a newspaper or magazine

61.4% 17.6% 11.9% 3.0% 1.7% 4.5%

Being interviewed on a TV program / News 81.9% 7.2% 4.0% 1.2% 0.7% 5.0%

Being interviewed on a radio program or podcast

80.4% 8.2% 4.2% 2.0% 0.7% 4.5%

Social Media activities Communicating about your research to non‐expert publics via online social media

63.9% 11.4% 10.6% 3.5% 6.4% 4.2%

Writing activities

Writing for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines)

66.1% 14.1% 11.4% 2.0% 2.2% 4.2%

Drafting a press release 71.0% 12.9% 9.7% 0.7% 1.0% 4.7%

Public talks and other direct interactions

Giving a public talk to non‐experts 46.3% 17.8% 20.0% 6.4% 5.2% 4.2%

Participating in a university open house day (e.g. inviting student groups or the general public)

57.4% 22.8% 12.9% 1.0% 1.7% 4.2%

Interacting with non‐specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside the university

59.9% 16.8% 12.6% 4.5% 2.0% 4.2%

Talking to children and teenagers in schools 61.1% 17.6% 9.4% 2.7% 4.5% 4.7%

Being a guide in a science center or museum 89.1% 5.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 4.5%

Debates on science issues

Speaking in a public hearing/debate about scientific issues

82.9% 6.2% 3.7% 1.5% 0.7% 5.0%

Advising policy and NGO

Advising or collaborated with policy‐makers 65.3% 12.6% 11.6% 4.0% 2.0% 4.5%

Advising or collaborated with NGO 71.3% 6.2% 7.7% 3.5% 6.2% 5.2%

9

What fields have the most active researchers in PE and in which activities? Analyzing levels of participation by fields of science, the study shows that giving public talks was the most performed activity across the fields, with the exception of those in Engineering & Technology and Medical & Health Sciences; for these researchers, public talks ranked second. Seven out of 10 social scientists, 6 out of 10 of those in the Agricultural Sciences, and almost a half of those in the Mathematics & Natural Sciences reported having participated in public talks at least once. In Engineering & Technology as well as the Medical & Health Sciences, participating in a university open day was the most performed activity, with roughly half researchers (48% to 51%) reported having been part of one at least one time. In the Mathematics & Natural Sciences, a third of researchers (36.6%) also participated in university open days and talked to young students in schools. Those in Agricultural Sciences also reported high levels of participation in science fairs outside the university (54%) and in school interactions (48.6%).

Table 4. Level of participation in PE activities by Field of Science % of respondents who participated one or more times in the following activities in the past year

Category Activity Mathematics

& Natural Sciences

Engineering &

Technology

Medical & Health Sciences

Agricultural Sciences

Social Sciences

Humanities

Being Interviewed by the media


27.7% 29.5% 37.0% 46.4% 47.1% 37.5%

Being interviewed on a TV program / News 12.8% 7.0% 14.8% 21.4% 18.8% 12.5%


14.9% 11.4% 7.4% 18.8% 24.3% 20.8%

Social Media activities Communicating about your research to non‐expert publics via online social media

33.0% 23.9% 33.3% 37.1% 42.9% 29.2%

Writing activities Writing for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines)

24.5% 25.0% 22.2% 45.7% 34.3% 41.6%

Drafting a press release 18.3% 20.7% 29.6% 30.0% 35.7% 20.8%


Giving a public talk to non‐experts 46.8% 39.8% 40.7% 62.9% 71.4% 41.7%


37.2% 51.1% 48.1% 35.7% 35.7% 33.3%

Interacting with non‐specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside the university

36.2% 36.4% 33.3% 54.3% 38.6% 12.5%

Talking to children and teenagers in schools 36.6% 36.8% 33.3% 48.6% 28.6% 20.8%

Being a guide in a science center or museum 9.6% 5.7% 7.4% 8.7% 1.4% 8.3%



16.1% 11.5% 7.4% 15.7% 8.6% 13.0%


Advising or collaborating with policy‐makers 23.4% 22.7% 25.9% 34.8% 54.3% 29.2%

Advising or collaborating with NGO 22.3% 16.3% 26.9% 27.5% 42.9% 12.5%

10

In addition, half of the social scientists indicated interactions with policy makers (54.3%) and were interviewed by newspapers (47.1%). In the Humanities, writing for popular audiences and being interviewed by newspapers were also very popular, with roughly 4 out of 10 of researchers (41.6% and 37.5% respectively) in the area indicating participation in these activities during the past year. Finally, being a guide in a science museum was the least performed PE activity for all fields, except for those in Medical & Health Sciences, who reported equally low levels of participation in radio interviews and debates on science issues. A matter of preferences: Do scientists have favorite engagement activities? Asked the question, “If given the choice, how willing would you be to…” participate in set of 14 PE activities, researchers indicated that giving a public talk to non-experts, advising or collaborating with policy makers, writing for popular audiences, being interviewed by newspapers or magazines, and talking to children and teenagers in schools are among the top 5 preferred activities (see Table 5). Among the least favorite types of communication, participants mentioned being a guide in a science center or museum, speaking in a public hearing or debate on science issues, and being interviewed on a TV program/news.

Table 5. Ranking of preference for PE activities among NCSU researchers % of respondents indicating willingness to participate in listed activities (somewhat willing, very willing, and completely willing)

1. Giving a public talk to non‐experts 85.1 %

2. Advising or collaborating with policy‐makers 81.1 %

3. Writing for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines) 79.0 %

4. Being interviewed for a newspaper or magazine 78.7 %

5. Talking to children and teenagers in schools 78.5 %

6. Advising or collaborating with NGO 77.5 %

7. Participating in a university open house day (e.g. inviting student groups or the general public) 77.3 %

8. Interacting with non‐specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside university 76.0 %

9. Being interviewed on a radio program or podcast 72.5 %

10. Drafting a press release 68.6 %

11. Communicating about your research to non‐expert publics via online social media 67.1 %

12. Being interviewed on a TV program / News 65.1 %

13. Speaking in a public hearing/debate about scientific issues 63.9 %

14. Being a guide in a science center or museum 53.6 %

Data show that approximately 8 out of 10 (78% to 85%) researchers are willing (somewhat, very or completely) to give public talks to non-experts, engage with policy makers, do popular writing, give interviews for newspapers and engage with schools. Just 15% to 22% are neutral or unwilling to perform these activities. On the bottom side 53% to 68% of respondents expressed a willingness to be a guide in science museums, speak in public hearings or debates, be interviewed on TV, communicate research trough social media, and draft a press release. The remainder 47% to 32% are either unwilling or neutral to participate in these types of interactions. It is interesting to note that many of these activities were rarely performed but they also require an invitation to be

11

extended to the researcher to participate from an organization outside the university. Some, however, do not share this attribute, such as communicating through social media. A complete distribution of preferences is offered in Table 6.

Table 6. Willingness to participate in 14 public engagement activities % of NCSU researchers is indicated

Category Activity Completely unwilling

Very unwilling

Somewhat unwilling

Neither willing

nor unwilling

Somewhat willing

Very Willing

Completely Willing

Did not answer

Being Interviewed by

the media


2.2% 3.2% 5.9% 7.2% 33.9% 23.5% 21.3% 2.7%

Being interviewed on a TV program / News

3.5% 7.4% 9.2% 12.4% 33.2% 16.6% 15.3% 2.5%


2.7% 3.7% 9.2% 9.2% 34.4% 21.5% 16.6% 2.7%

Social Media activities

Communicating about your research to non‐expert publics via online social media

3.0% 5.4% 10.4% 11.6% 32.2% 21.0% 13.9% 2.5%

Writing activities

Writing for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines)

1.7% 2.5% 5.9% 8.4% 32.2% 29.2% 17.6% 2.5%

Drafting a press release 2.2% 5.4% 7.9% 13.4% 33.9% 24.8% 9.9% 2.5%


Giving a public talk to non‐experts 1.0% 1.0% 4.2% 5.9% 25.7% 34.9% 24.5% 2.7%


0.7% 2.7% 5.2% 11.4% 32.7% 25.5% 19.1% 2.7%

Interacting with non‐specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside university

1.7% 2.2% 6.7% 10.6% 31.9% 28.0% 16.1% 2.7%

Talking to children and teenagers in schools

2.2% 2.2% 5.4% 9.2% 25.0% 29.2% 24.3% 2.5%

Being a guide in a science center or museum

5.2% 9.7% 12.6% 15.6% 27.7% 15.8% 10.1% 3.2%



4.5% 5.4% 11.1% 12.1% 30.0% 20.35 13.6% 3.0%


Advising or collaborating with policy‐makers

1.7% 2.7% 4.2% 7.7% 28.2% 31.9% 21.0% 2.5%

Advising or collaborating with NGO

0.5% 1.7% 2.5% 14.1% 28.5% 27.5% 21.5% 3.7%

12

Beliefs: Advantages and disadvantages of public engagement Among the potential positive outcomes or advantages associated with public engagement, there are certain statements that half or more of survey respondents agree with. For instance, 82.9% and 78% of scientists, respectively, agree that PE helps to improve their communication and teaching skills, as well as gives them a broader perspective on society. Moreover, 60% agree that engaging with the general public is fun, and 50% indicate agreement about the notion that PE helps them to progress in their scientific careers and enhances their social reputation. Interestingly, 40% of respondents agree, but 50% are either neutral or disagree, that public engagement helps scientists to gain funding for their research and with the idea of getting paid for doing PE. There are divergences whether or not PE is associated with these beneficial outcomes for researchers. On the negative side, potential barriers or adverse outcomes include the idea that researchers see themselves not having time to do PE, statement that reached 52.2% of agreement. In addition, 35% agree in that they might get caught up in public controversies if they participate in public engagement activities. Remarkably, most scientists reject the notion that the scientific community looks down on those involved in public communication, the so-called “Carl Sagan effect” named after the astrophysicist who was denied membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Around three out of four researchers (73% to 76%) disagree with the belief that talking to the public will negatively affect their image in front of their colleagues, reject the idea that doing public engagement is for those less capable of doing research, and disagree that is impossible to do research well and also engage with non-experts. Finally, researchers show a moderately positive view of non-expert audiences regarding their ability to comprehend science communication. More than a half of participants (53%) disagree with the notion that the public will misunderstand most aspects of their research. Nevertheless, almost a quarter (22%) said they agree with the idea that there will be misunderstanding on the public side. The remainder 17.3% indicated neutral evaluations of the statement and 7.4% did not answer. More details are offered in Table 7, in the following page.

13

Table 7. Specific beliefs about taking part in PE activities % of NCSU researchers is indicated

Disagree Neutral Agree Did not answer

Potential negative outcomes or barriers

I do not have enough time to participate in public communication activities

29.5% 10.9% 52.2% 7.4%

The public will misunderstand most aspects of my research 53.2% 17.3% 22% 7.4%

Talking to the public will negatively affect my image in front of my colleagues

73.5% 13.1% 5.7% 7.7%

It is impossible to do research well and also engage with non‐experts 75.5% 6.2% 10.4% 7.9%

I might get caught up in public controversies regarding my research if I participate in public engagement activities

36.9% 20.3% 35.1% 7.7%

Doing public engagement is for those who are less capable of doing research

76.2% 8.7% 7.2% 7.9%

Potential positive outcomes or benefits

Taking part in public engagement would help me gain funding for my research

24.8% 26% 41.8% 7.4%

Interacting with non‐experts about my research helps me to improve my communication and teaching skills

4.0% 5.2% 82.9% 7.9%

Participating in public engagement helps me to progress in my career 17.8% 23.8% 50.7% 7.7%

I like to engage with the general public because it is fun 11.1% 21% 59.7% 8.2%

Interacting with the general public gives me a broader perspective on society

5.7% 7.9% 78.5% 7.9%

Participating in public engagement activities will enhance my social reputation

15.3% 26.7% 49.8% 8.2%

Getting paid for participating in public communication would be a good idea

21.7% 30% 40.3% 7.9%

14

Communication training: Past participation and future plans A couple of aspects regarding communication training for scientists were included in the questionnaire. Almost a half of respondents (49%) reported no previous training in communicating science to public audiences. Four out of ten researchers (38%) said they did some training (1 to 3 times), and roughly one in ten (9%) reported participation in training events 4 or more times in their career. Despite a low level of participation in communication training among scientists, 45% disagree with the idea that they do not have enough training to participate in PE activities, suggesting that they are sufficiently prepared to do public communication and/or they do not need additional training to perform PE. Nevertheless, a third of respondents (30%) agree that they need more training, and 18% are neutral. Furthermore, asked about future plans in respect to taking part in communication training, survey participants were divided. Four out of 10 researchers (40%) said it is likely that they will participate in training schemes in the future. A similar amount (38%) indicated they participation is unlikely, whereas 17% expressed neutrality.

Unawareness of institutional facilitators and incentives for PE Researchers were also asked whether they are aware of the existence of incentives and organizational structures (at the college level) that may facilitate their participation in PE. The study found that there is a high level of unawareness of: (a) the presence of a communication/PR office, (b) the inclusion of PE in the college mission statement, (c) the need of approval to speak with journalists, (d) the allocation of time for PE by their colleges and (e) rewards for participation in PE by their colleges . In other words, there is a high percentage of “don’t know” answers to these items. Considerable amounts of participants are not sure or are ignorant of the presence of PE in the mission statement (50%) and of the existence of a communication/PR office (32%), two aspects that were checked as being actually implemented by all colleges at NCSU. In addition, the majority of respondents do not know whether or not they need approval to talk to the media (60%), if their college allocates time for PE (53%), or if their college reward participation in PE (58%). Data suggests the persistence of a communication challenge: to provide researchers clear information about their policies, incentives, procedures, and available infrastructure that might facilitate participation in public communication and engagement activities.

49%

18%

19%

4%5%

5%

Figure 3. Level of PE training among NCSU researchers Amount of science communication training during their career

None

Once

2 or 3 times

4 or 5 times

6 or more times

Did not answer

15

Experience, liking and accountability: Three factors to understand and predict researchers’ public engagement participation Data collected in the survey also served to conduct a hypothesis-driven, explanatory study on the factors that determine a researcher’s participation in science communication activities. Built on previous research in the area, this thesis project included an expanded model of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to investigate the influence of demographic, cognitive, and institutional factors on a researcher’s intention to participate in public engagement (PE). The TPB assumes that behavioral intention is the strongest determinant of actual behavior. Results of statistical analysis indicated that there are six major significant predictors of a researcher’s intention to participate in PE in the next 12 months. A scientist will be more likely to participate in public engagement activities in the future if he or she: (1) has been trained in communicating to broader audiences, (2) has participated in PE activities in the past year, (3) holds positive attitudes towards public engagement, (4) feels a sense of moral obligation to do PE as part of his or her role as a researcher, (5) feels support from supervisors or other direct superiors regarding participation in PE, and (6) acts as a principal or co-principal investigator in a funded project, regardless of the funding source. In turn, these six significant predictors of a scientist’s intention to do PE can be synthesized in three themes that appeared as central to stimulate this type of communicative behavior: (a) prior experience, (b) liking, and (c) accountability. Experience (researchers having communication training and past PE participation) represented the most powerful factor leading to public science communication. However, other things being equal, strategies to encourage PE should take into account liking and the accountability factors as well. In other words, beyond training and experience, institutions should appeal to the affective and ethical imperatives of researchers to encourage PE. First, the idea of liking the behavior in question plays an important role in researchers’ decision because the public nature of many of these activities can produce anxiety and feel uncomfortable. Presumably, with more experience, these feelings can diminish over time. Second, a sense of being accountable can be a powerful influence as well. This was true in three roles: as researchers (many of whom are publicly funded and may be motivated to justify the use of tax dollars), as representatives of the colleges, supervisors, and advisers who support them, or as leaders of funded research projects in which they are expected to create knowledge, mentor students, innovate with new methods, and communicate their findings. The complete study was a master’s thesis completed by the author of this report. The complete version is available online on NCSU Thesis and Dissertations website under the following link: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/9351/1/etd.pdf

16

Appendix Survey Questions Thinking about your general workload in the past 12 months, how often did you perform the following tasks?

Valid cases Mean

(1 Never – 7 All the time) Administration 397 3.34 Teaching, advising, or mentoring 403 4.60 Research, Scholarship, and/or Creative Activities 402 5.68 Outreach or extension 400 3.23 Service 398 3.53 Taking courses 240 3.25

In the past 12 months, have you received research funding? Select all that apply

Answer N %

(from N=404) I have received research funding as a Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator

178 44.1

I have contributed to funded research where I was not the Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator

188 46.5

I have not received funding 94 23.3

Where did the funding for your research come from? Select all that apply

Sources N %

(from N=404) University sources 115 28.5 Foundations, Nonprofits, and/or Professional Associations 70 17.3 Industry 84 20.8 State and/or local government funds 53 13.1 Federal / National Science Foundation (NSF) 103 25.5 Federal / National Institutes of Health (NIH) 26 6.4 Federal / Other 109 27 Other 18 4.5

17

Below are different adjectives that might be used to describe these communication activities. Even though some of these descriptions might seem similar, we are interested in knowing how do you personally feel about taking part in public engagement activities? Would you say these activities are ...

Characteristic (1-7 semantic differential scale) N Mean Standard Deviation Bad:Good 399 5.72 .90

Unenjoyable:Enjoyable 397 5.39 1.05

Pointless:Worthwhile 397 5.72 1.06

Unpleasant:Pleasant 394 5.24 1.04

Foolish:Wise 393 5.59 1.08

Harmful:Beneficial 397 5.83 .95

Difficult:Easy 391 4.31 1.45

E.g.: 1=Extremely Bad / 7=Extremely Good

If given the choice, how willing would you be to perform the following activities? (1=Completely unwilling / 7=Completely Willing)

Activities N Mean Standard Deviation

Giving a public talk to non-experts 393 5.64 1.20 Speaking in a public hearing/debate about scientific issues 392 4.78 1.60 Being interviewed for a newspaper or magazine 393 5.29 1.42 Being interviewed on a TV program / News 394 4.80 1.59 Being interviewed on a radio program or podcast 393 5.05 1.47 Communicating about your research to non-expert publics via online social media 394 4.88 1.52 Writing for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines) 394 5.30 1.33 Drafting a press release 394 4.90 1.41 Participating in a university open house day (e.g. inviting student groups or the general public) 393 5.32 1.29 Interacting with non-specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside the university 393 5.23 1.33 Talking to children and teenagers in schools 394 5.43 1.41 Advising or collaborating with policy-makers 394 5.44 1.34 Advising or collaborating with NGO 389 5.46 1.21 Being a guide in a science center or museum 391 4.44 1.65

18

Now thinking about your actual participation in the same public communication activities, in the past 12 months how many times have you... (1=Never / 2=Once / 3= 2 or 3 times / 4= 4 or 5 times / 5= 6 or more times)

Activities N Mean Standard Deviation

Given a public talk to non-experts 387 2.02 1.21 Spoken in a public hearing/debate about scientific issues 384 1.22 0.66 Been interviewed for a newspaper or magazine 386 1.60 0.95 Been interviewed on a TV program / News 384 1.23 0.66 Been interviewed on a radio program or podcast 386 1.27 0.71 Communicated about your research to non-expert publics via online social media 387 1.72 1.20 Written for popular audiences (e.g. book or chapter, articles for popular magazines) 387 1.54 0.94 Drafted a press release 385 1.40 0.78 Participated in a university open house day (e.g. inviting student groups or the general public) 387 1.61 0.89 Interacted with non-specialist publics in a science fair or similar information days outside the university 387 1.66 1.01 Talked to children and teenagers in schools 385 1.65 1.08 Advised or collaborated with policy-makers 386 1.58 0.99 Advised or collaborated with NGO 383 1.60 1.19 Served as guide in a science center or museum 386 1.10 0.42 Does your College/Institute…...mention public engagement in its mission statement? N=404 % Yes 173 42.8 No 11 2.7 I don't know 180 44.6

No Answer 40 9.9

Does your College/Institute…...have a Communication, Public Relations or Press Office? N=404 % Yes 239 59.2 No 9 2.2 I don't know 117 29.0

No Answer 39 9.7 Does your College/Institute…...require approval before you talk to the media? N=404 % Yes 31 7.7 No 116 28.7 I don't know 218 54.0

No Answer 39 9.7

19

Does your College/Institute…...allocate time for public engagement?

N=404 %

Yes 106 26.2 No 66 17.3 I don't know 193 47.8

No Answer 39 9.7 Does your College/Institute…...reward participation in public engagement? N=404 %

Yes 72 17.8 No 81 20.0 I don't know 211 52.2

No Answer 40 9.9 Thinking about the degree of support you receive from your Department Head, Dean, Director, or other supervisor regarding your participation in public

Answer N=404 % Very opposed 2 0.5 Somewhat opposed 11 2.7 Neither opposed nor supportive 96 23.8 Somewhat supportive 89 22.0 Very supportive 126 31.2 Completely supportive 59 14.6 No Answer 21 5.2

Mean

Standard Deviation

1=Very Opposed / 7=Completely Supportive 5.31 1.12

20

Thinking about the colleagues you respect the most, how frequently would you say they take part in public engagement activities? N=404 %

Never 7 1.7 Rarely 57 14.1 Occasionally 62 15.3 Sometimes 122 30.2 Frequently 81 20.0 Very often 45 11.1 All the time 11 2.7 No Answer 19 4.7

Mean

Standard Deviation

1=Never / 7=All the time

4.02 1.36

How many times in your career have you participated in training courses or workshops about communicating to public audiences? N=404 %

None 198 49.0 Once 73 18.1 2 or 3 times 77 19.1 4 or 5 times 16 4.0 6 or more times 20 5.0 Missing 20 5.0

Mean

Standard Deviation

1=Once / 5=Six or more times

1.92 1.16

21

How likely is that you will take part in training programs about public communication in the future?

N=404 %

Very unlikely 55 13.6 Unlikely 54 13.4 Somewhat unlikely 44 10.9 Neutral 67 16.6 Somewhat likely 87 21.5 Likely 50 12.4 Very likely 26 6.4 Total 21 5.2

Mean

Standard Deviation

1=Very Unlikely / 7=Very likely

3.86 1.82

How much do you agree or disagree with each statement? (1=Strongly Disagree / 7=Strongly Agree)

N Mean Standard Deviation

I do not have enough time to participate in public communication activities 374 4.29 1.66 Taking part in public engagement would help me gain funding for my research 374 4.18 1.58 Interacting with non-experts about my research helps me to improve my communication and teaching skills 372 5.78 1.13 The public will misunderstand most aspects of my research 374 3.32 1.44 Talking to the public will negatively affect my image in front of my colleagues 373 2.35 1.26 Participating in public engagement helps me to progress in my career 373 4.57 1.49 It is impossible to do research well and also engage with non-experts 372 2.35 1.54 I like to engage with the general public because it is fun 371 4.87 1.38 Every researcher has the duty to communicate with the non-specialist public 372 4.81 1.52 I might get caught up in public controversies regarding my research if I participate in public engagement activities

373 3.83 1.63

Participating in public engagement activities will enhance my social reputation 371 4.54 1.38 I do not have enough training to participate in public engagement activities 371 3.53 1.64 Interacting with the general public gives me a broader perspective on society 372 5.55 1.20 Researchers usually do public engagement activities because it helps them to get tenure 373 3.39 1.50 Doing public engagement is for those who are less capable of doing research 372 2.15 1.37 Getting paid for participating in public communication would be a good idea 372 4.32 1.54

22

Thinking of communicating your research to non-specialists… In the next 12 months, how likely is that you will participate in a public engagement activity? N=404 %

Very unlikely 25 6.2 Unlikely 28 6.9 Somewhat unlikely 24 5.9 Undecided 58 14.4 Somewhat likely 94 23.3 Likely 65 16.1 Very likely 79 19.6 No Answer 31 7.7

Mean

Standard Deviation

1=Very unlikely / 7=Very likely

4.82 1.78

What is your current status? N=404 %

Master's student 34 8.4 PhD Student 87 21.5 Post Doc 39 9.7 Non-tenure track faculty (adjunct, research prof.) 27 6.7 Assistant professor 31 7.7 Associate professor (without tenure) 9 2.2 Associate professor (tenured) 47 11.6 Professor 100 24.8 No Answer 30 7.4

23

Which of these major categories best describes your major field of knowledge and research? N= 404 %

Mathematics & Natural Sciences 94 23.3 Engineering & Technology 89 22.0 Medical & Health Sciences 27 6.7 Agricultural Sciences 70 17.3 Social Sciences 70 17.3 Humanities 24 5.9 No Answer 30 7.4 Note: These categories were drawn from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2007’s

revised classification of fields of science and technology (FOS) in the Frascati Manual. What is your sex? N=404 %

Male 239 59.2 Female 133 32.9 No Answer 32 7.9