DRAFT SLIDES FOR TALK TO BE GIVEN IN MAY 2017 AT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING] The current study looks at how academics 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 are statistically predicted using the scientists’ attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs, as well demographics and past communication activity, training, and past thinking about the objectives. The data allows 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.

1. This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. 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.
Geophysical,
Geological, and
Ecological Scientists’
Views About
Communication
Objectives
(with general and biological
scientists as a bonus)

2. Our NSF grant goals …
• Help trainers understand how
scientists are thinking about engagement
• Help trainers identify drivers of engagement,
including drivers of goals and objectives
• Get more scientists to communicate
more strategically (i.e., set and achieve goals)
Tactics
Communication
Objectives
Ultimate
Goals

3. Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific Societies
Type of society Resp.
N
Resp.
Rate
Univ.
n
Avg. Age
All/Univ.
Male
All/Univ.
White
All/Univ.
General 1,263 9% 1130 61/62 69/70% 85/91%
Chemistry 1,919 8% 601 55/51 72/66% 78/89%
Biochemistry 513 6% 384 57/55 63/61% 78/85%
Microbiology 1,167 9% 716 57/54 56/55% 75/84%
Geological 1,103 10% 971 51/51 59/65% 88/90%
Geophysical 2,419 10% 1196 51/47 61/56% 85/90%
Ecological 860 16% 513 51/50 58/56% 83/92%
Social Science 963 22% 944 50/51 61/61% 89/89%
Notes: General society received 5 contacts; ecological society received 3 contacts. All other
societies received 4 contacts. Sample for some reported questions smaller because of sample
splitting by engagement mode. All data presented preliminary.
We will focus on:
1. university respondents to
allow for best comparisons
2. Societies where we asked
about risk profile of research

4. 350
Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific Societies
Type of society Resp
. N
Resp.
Rate
Univ.
n
Avg. Age
All/Univ.
Male
All/Univ.
White
All/Univ.
Face-to-Face Condition
(current study)
General 1,26
3
9% 1130 61/62 69/70% 85/91% 385
Chemistry 1,91
9
8% 601 55/51 72/66% 78/89%
Biochemistry 513 6% 384 57/55 63/61% 78/85%
Microbiology 1,16
7
9% 716 57/54 56/55% 75/84% 375
Geological 1,10
3
10% 971 51/51 59/65% 88/90% 259
Geophysical 2,41
9
10% 1196 51/47 61/56% 85/90% 316
Ecological 860 16% 513 51/50 58/56% 83/92% 350
Social Science 963 22% 944 50/51 61/61% 89/89%
(Total n~ = 1,685)

5. What constitutes ‘strategic communication behavior’?
WhFlickr creative commons: aimee.craze ‘net’; Ben Salter, ‘levers’. Also PR week.
Communicator
goal selection
Choices about
communication
objectives
(i.e., desired outcomes)
Channel
choices
Tactical
choices

6. Strategic Communication as Planned Behavior (SCaPB?)
Attitude
Injunctive and
Subjective Norms
Internal and External
Efficacy Beliefs
Context
(Demographics,etc.)
Intention/willingness
to use strategic
communication
behavior
Use of strategic
communication
behavior
Current Study:
Communicator
objectives choice

7. Strategic
Science/Risk
Communication?

8. Average objective prioritization
Traditional
objectives (still)
most prioritized
(7 point, scale: ‘lowest’
to ‘highest’ priority)
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Bars are ranges, not
confidence intervals

9. Predicting: Ensuring Informed …
EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE
PAPER LOOKS LIKE …

10. Predicting: Demonstrating Caring …
EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE
PAPER LOOKS LIKE …

11. A summary is probably more helpful …
Most
consistent
predictors of
objective
prioritization

12. A summary …
Sometimes
predictors of
objective
prioritization

13. What did we learn?
1. Strategic choices are planned behaviors (?)
2. Best predictors of scientists’ objective
prioritization are ethicality (attitude)
and prior consideration of the objective
3. Norms and efficacy are marginal
predictors of objective prioritization
How would this look once scientists have
learned more about potential objectives?