1. The Culture of Public Engagement at Hubbard
Brook and Harvard Forest: Year II
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grants AISL 1421214-1421723, and
1713197. 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.
3. Who am I?
Public Opinion about
Science and Scientists
Scientists’ opinions about the
public and public engagement
(a.k.a. science communication
4. Task: Understand engagement culture
at Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest
Method: Three rounds of interviews and surveys
Fall 2017 Survey (70% response rate)
Winter 2019 Survey (53% rate)
Fall 2017 semi-structured
interviews (n = 17)
Additional interviews
planned for Summer/Fall 2019
5. Today …
2019 survey data on …
1. Overall public engagement levels
2. Attitudes of engagement
3. Attitudes about engagement staff
(Will not talk about modeling of data aimed at
understanding WHY researchers might hold the
communication beliefs and goals they hold.)
6. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times
(4)
About once
a month (5)
Multiple
times per
month (6)
Once a week
or more (7)
Past Year Face-to-Face Engagement
Hubbard 2017
Hubbard 2019
Harvard 2017
Harvard 2019
ESA 2016
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
7. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times
(3)
6-11 times
(4)
About
once a
month (5)
Multiple
times per
month (6)
Once a
week or
more (7)
Past Year Online Engagement
Hubbard 2017
Hubbard 2019
Harvard 2017
Harvard 2019
ESA 2016
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
8. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times
(4)
About once
a month (5)
Multiple
times per
month (6)
Once a week
or more (7)
Past Year Policy Engagement
Hubbard 2017
Hubbard 2019
Harvard 2017
Harvard 2019
ESA 2016
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
9. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times
(4)
About once
a month (5)
Multiple
times per
month (6)
Once a week
or more (7)
Past Year News Media Engagement
Hubbard 2017
Hubbard 2019
Harvard 2017
Harvard 2019
ESA 2016
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
10. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times
(4)
About once
a month (5)
Multiple
times per
month (6)
Once a week
or more (7)
Past Year Youth Engagement
Hubbard 2019
Hubbard 2017
Harvard 2017
Harvard 2019
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
11. 1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
F2F Online Media Policy
Engagement Willingness
(1 = Not at all willing, 7 = Very Willing)
Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 ESA 2016
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
12. 1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
F2F Online Media Policy
Perceived Engagement Opportunity
(1 = No opportunity, 7 = A great deal of opportunity)
Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019
Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
13. Fall 2017 Survey
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Attitudes, Normative Beliefs, & Efficacy Beliefs
(1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)
Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019
Attitude: “Engagement enjoyable to me…”
Attitude: “Engagement frustrating to me …”
Norm: “Colleagues would respect…”
Norm: “Colleagues regularly participate…”
Efficacy: Self (5Qs, a = .86, 81)
Efficacy: “I do not have time …”)
Efficacy: Response (3Qs, a = .65, 65)
Overall: “I had a positive experience …”
14. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support
public engagement activities, including staff
The core operating budget of
institutions or organization (not
project-based grants)
Budgets on new natural science
research grants in your area
Notes: Harvard Forest had some relatively high percentages that push the mean
(Perceived actual budget being spent on engagement = ~8.5%)
14
18
16
7
12
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Budget Respondents think Should Be use to
Support Public Engagement, Including Staff (%)
Hubbard
HarvardThe NSF budget for LTERs
Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
15. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support
public engagement activities, including staff
Most public engagement activities should be
funded from stand-alone, engagement-specific
grants, supplements, or other funding sources …
Most public engagement activities should
generally be funded from institutions core
budgets, not individual grants.
Scientists should generally include a budget
for public engagement activities in their
federal grant proposals….
Most public engagement activities should
generally not be funded… (could be voluntary)
77
31
31
0
84
24
54
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Where respondents think
Engagement Funding Should Originate (%)
Hubbard
Harvard
Note: Respondents could provide more than one response
16. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support
public engagement activities, including staff
Never (1)
3%
Rarely (2)
37%
Sometimes (3)
34%
Often (4)
23%
Very often (5)
3%
Never (1)
6%
Rarely (2)
18%
Sometimes (3)
35%
Often (4)
23%
Very
often (5)
18%
[I] general, how frequently … do you directly interact with public
engagement staff at Hubbard Brook or Harvard Forest (e.g., face-to-
face, phone, personal email, video-conference)?
Hubbard
Brook
Harvard
Forest
Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
17. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support
public engagement activities, including staff
[[H]ow how frequently or infrequently do you receive indirect
communication from public engagement staff at Hubbard Brook or
Harvard Forest (e.g., group email, newsletters)?
Rarely (2)
6%
Sometimes (3)
48%
Often (4)
46%
Never (1)
9%
Rarely (2)
12%
Sometimes (3)
30%
Often (4)
34%
Very often (5)
15%
Hubbard
Brook
Harvard
Forest
Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
18. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support
public engagement activities, including staff
Perceived Respect/Warmth (4Qs, alpha = .78)
(e.g., Respect/Disrespect; Share/Not Values, etc.)
Perceived Efficacy (3Qs, alpha = .74)
(e.g., increase/decrease impact, etc.)
Perceived Competence Scale (4Qs, alpha = 74)
(e.g., Skilled/Unskilled; Much/Little Expertise etc.)
How much/little expectations to work with
public engagement staff (3Q, alpha = .81)
(colleagues, leadership, funders)
4.19
4.34
3.71
2.80
2.84
4.41
4.26
3.98
3.09
3.23
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Perceptions of Public Engagement Staff
(all measured with 5-point, item specific scales)
Increase/Decrease workload
Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
19. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support
public engagement activities, including staffNext steps
• Late summer/fall interviews
(and more next year)
• Late spring 2020 survey
Where we’re at …
• There seems to general engagement support,
moderate expectations/opportunities …
• Key driver seems to be ‘efficacy’ of efforts
• How might we increase interest in support
for long-term engagement infrastructure?
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grants AISL 1421214-1421723, and
1713197. 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.
Editor's Notes
Key points:
Most respondents at both sites are engaging in a face-to-face format about 2-5 times per year.
There are still a few respondents who aren’t engaging at all and some that engage quite frequently.
Key points:
Most respondents at both sites are engaging in online engagement either zero and or about 2-5 times per year.
There are still a few respondents who aren’t engaging at all and some that engage quite frequently.
Key points:
Most respondents never engage or engage a few times per year with policy makers.
There are a very small number who engage more regularly.
Key points:
Most respondents at both sites either never engage or only a engage a few times per year.
There are still a few respondents who aren’t engaging at all and some that engage quite frequently.
Key points:
Most respondents never engage or engage a few times per year with youth
There are a very small number who engage more regularly.
Key Points
There remains a high willingness to engage, although maybe not as much online.
Key points
Willingness does not seem to match opportunity but we don’t’ know what amount of opportunity people want (maybe the question should be not enough/too much opportunity).
Face-to-face opportunity at Harvard seems to have jumped up between 2017 and 2019; same goes for online and policy at Hubbard Brooke (not sure what to make of that; maybe nothing).
Key points
No real changes from2017 to 2019
Generally people see engagement as enjoyable; may be a slight uptick at Harvard
Respondents think their colleagues respect those who engage.
Respondents feel fairly efficacious and think engagement can be quite efficacious; tend not to say they have too little time.
Overwhelming have had positive experiences.
Key points
General trend was for people to rate goals less highly; order stayed pretty much the same with wanting people to use evidence ranking most highly.
Wonder if part of being more strategic is to recognize that you can’t prioritize everything highly? That’s probably reading in too much, however.
Key Points
Not much moving in the relative scoring of communication objectives, either though maybe some minimal absolute decline at both sites.
Would love to see listening and caring climb the ranks.
Key points
Generally, people think we should spent 10-15% of budgets on public engagement activities; which is about half of what they think is currently being spent.
Key points
Most respondents seem to think that engagement should be written into core grants, but other sources might also make sense.
Key points
Still lots of people who don’t feel like they hear too often from PE staff; assume that’s not a good. Harvard Forest seems to be doing a little better (and worse?)
Key points
Still lots of people who don’t feel like they hear too often from PE staff; assume that’s not a good. Harvard Forest seems to be doing a little better (and worse?)
Key points
Respondents seem to see PE staff as competent and respectful.
A little less agreement on perceived impact
Worrying bit is that many respondents indicate that PE staff increase, rather than decrease, their workload.
They also don’t think there’s much expectation from their colleagues to work with engagement staff.