1 Scientists’ perceptions of online public engagement (and the need for theory!) Anthony Dudo, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dept. of Advertising & PR Texas at Austin John C. Besley, Ph.D. Associate Professor & Ellis N. Brandt Chair Dept. of Advertising & PR Michigan State
32
Embed
Sra 2014 presentation engagement goals and engagement
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Scientists’ perceptions of online public engagement (and the need for theory!)
Anthony Dudo, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorDept. of Advertising & PRTexas at Austin
John C. Besley, Ph.D.Associate Professor & Ellis N. Brandt ChairDept. of Advertising & PRMichigan State
3
Broad context the three moments of science communication
What brings people to science? (focus on public)
What brings science to people? (focus on scientists)
How do gatekeepers contribute?(focus on media / PIOs / bloggers)
5
More attention to PES on the ground
• More PES training
• Pedagogical shifts
• Scientist-to-scientist advice
• Popular books
• Third-party resources
• Active blogging community
• Risk communication is key underlying theme
6
More research on PES
7
This research …has provided a strong baseline understanding of scientists’ perceptions and activity related to PES
8
Aim to examine the nature of PESthink about PES from the perspective of strategic communication: planned communication with a goal in mind
9
When a scientist engages …what is she or he hoping to accomplish? what are scientists’ goals? what impact do these goals have?
10
Communication theory?…theory focuses on communication effects … theory focuses on information seeking … theory predicting communication choices?
Communication strategy
as planned behavior?
12
5 goals from the literature …
EducateDefend science
ExciteBuild trust
Frame debates
Strategic goals
Traditional goals
Research Questions
1
2
X
What goals do scientists prioritize when communicating with the public?
Are these goals associated with willingness to engage
(Past research focused on predictors of goal selection)
14
Method
Sample
• U.S.-based, university-based Ph.D.s who were AAAS members
2013 AAAS Scientist Survey
Distribution
• Online (Qualtrics), Tailored Design Method
• All requests sent from AAAS Membership Dept. (to protect privacy)
• Incentive: 1/200 chance to win $500 amazon.com gift card or donation to AAAS
Response Rate
• 390/5,000 = 8%!!! (not adjusted for undeliverable emails)
15
Descriptive Results
16
2013 Scientist Survey: Past Engagement“About how many total days … did you devote to … online engagement through websites, blogs and/or social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) aimed at communicating science with ADULTS who are not scientists?”
0 days about 1 day about 2 days
about 3-4 days
about 5 days
6-10 Days 11+ days0
10
20
30
40
50
60
note: treated as continuous (using dummy variable made no difference; relationship is linear)
17
2013 Scientist Survey: Willingness to engage (%)“How willing would you be to take part in … online engagement through websites, blogs and/or social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) aimed at communicating science with ADULTS who are not scientists?”
not at all willing
very willing0
5
10
15
20
25
18
2013 Scientist Survey: Goals
messaging goal average (r = .54)
describing … in ways that make them relevant
framing research … {to} resonate …
trust goals average (r = .54)
demonstrating … openness & transparency
hearing what others think …
getting people excited about science
knowledge goals average (r = .41)
ensuring that scientists … are part of …
ensuring that people are informed …
defensive goals average (r = .63)
defending science …
correcting scientific misinformation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.96
5.34
4.59
5
5.22
4.76
5.59
5.88
5.72
6.04
5.96
5.79
6.14
Strate-gic
goals
“How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement?”
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was the “lowest priority” and 7 was the “highest priority”
19
2013 Scientist Survey: Goals
messaging goal average (r = .54)
describing … in ways that make them relevant
framing research … {to} resonate …
trust goals average (r = .54)
demonstrating … openness & transparency
hearing what others think …
getting people excited about science
knowledge goals average (r = .41)
ensuring that scientists … are part of …
ensuring that people are informed …
defensive goals average (r = .63)
defending science …
correcting scientific misinformation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.96
5.34
4.59
5
5.22
4.76
5.59
5.88
5.72
6.04
5.96
5.79
6.14
Strate-gic
goals
“How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement?”
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was the “lowest priority” and 7 was the “highest priority”
Paper in Revision– Predictors of goals: • Perceived goal ethicality• Goal-specific external efficacy• Goal-specific internal efficacy• Perceptions of colleagues goals
20
Additional multivariate results:Willingness to engage online
RQ: If you prioritize a goal (any goal), does that mean you might be more willing to engage?
21
Predictors of online engagement willingnessModel specification for hierarchical regressions (based on theory of planned behavior)