This presentation is to be delivered on Feb. 14 at the annual meeting of the AAAS. It reports research supported by the NSF's Advancing Informal Science Learning group (see disclaimer in presentation).
How did science get so political, and what does science itself tell us about how research is accepted (or not) in a politicized landscape? Questions like those were the basis of the much-heralded March edition of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, co-edited by Elizabeth Suhay and James N. Druckman.
Piggybacking off the success of that issue, Social Science Spaces and the AAPSS are hosting a webinar on May 14 at 9 a.m. Eastern that features Suhay, assistant professor of Government at the School of Public Affairs at American University and two of the authors in that special edition -- Dan M. Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and a professor of psychology at Yale Law School, and Francis X. Shen, McKnight Land-Grant Professor and associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota -- discussing the nexus of science, politics and law. The webinar is free and will include ample time for questions from the audience.
We are taught that science is an objective arbiter, separating fact from fiction. With this in mind, we might expect that when a majority of scientists state their belief in an empirical phenomenon—say, that human activities are contributing to climate change, or that humans evolved from lower life forms—that well-educated nonscientists would follow suit. Yet, given current politicized debates over climate change and evolution (and vaccines, and GMOs, and other scientific subjects), we know this is not the truth.
Again thinking of science as an objective arbiter, we might expect that science employed in the service of legal proceedings and lawmaking would be an uncontroversial affair, with experts converging in their interpretation of academic studies and those studies’ implications to the case or policy before them. Yet, here too reality is far from our idealized expectation, as legal professionals, policymakers, and ordinary citizens (in their roles as jurors and voters) frequently disagree over how laboratory findings translate into law and legislation.
Make no mistake: Science is our best bet for understanding the world around us and for crafting many legal decisions and much legislation. Yet, nonscientists don’t always consume science responsibly, sometimes refusing to accept scientific consensus, sometimes stretching the implications of novel areas of scientific study past their breaking point, sometimes “spinning” the outcomes of scientific studies in support of a desired political or legal outcome. In this webinar, we try to make sense of these biases in public understanding of science as well as in the application of science to law and public policy and recommend ways to overcome them.
Academic Partnerships Beyond DClinPsy: Enabling and Utilising the Resources o...Mike Marriott
Background: With approximately 20,000 undergraduate students starting degrees in psychology yearly and large academic staff groups linked to these cohorts, university psychology departments hold untapped potential benefits for many innovations that clinical psychologists would want to pursue. This workshop will aim to develop delegates’ understanding of the academic environment, and support them in identifying the ways in which their current interests and practices might align with the requirements of these environments. Delegates will leave with an action plan of achievable steps towards meaningful partnerships with their local academic colleagues.
Key Points: The workshop will be facilitated by an established academic who made the transition from full-time clinical practice, and will seek to bridge the distinct perspectives of these two worlds. Delegates will be introduced to the key features of the key performance indicators for academic institutions, with an overview of how these driving forces in academia can move students and academics towards meeting the needs of clinicians in practice. Using examples of developments from one of the largest UK providers of undergraduate psychology education, delegates will work with colleagues to identify the areas of their own practice that would be most likely to lead towards fruitful partnerships with local universities, creating achievable action plans to inspire each other with clear ways forward to take back to their practice.
Conclusion: The partnership work identified through this workshop will empower delegates who are practicing clinical psychologists to bring more of their innovative ideas to bear meaningful impact for the communities we serve.
AAAS 2016: Key Findings from NSB Science and Engineering Indicators 2016, Cha...John C. Besley
This presentation reports on key findings from the National Science Board's biennial chapter on public attitudes and understanding about S&T as presented in Science and Engineering Indicators. Views presented are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NSB.
SRA 2016: Do Scientists who Study 'Risky' Topic Communicate MoreJohn C. Besley
Presentation analyzed data from scientists from across a range of scientific societies to assess the degree to which scientists' beliefs about the public's risk perceptions are associated with scientists' with past communication behavior, willingness to communicate, communication objectives, and communication goals. The primary predictor variables were whether the scientists said they thought the public saw (1) too little risk in their area, (2) too much risk in their area, and (3) whether scientists thought their area was controversial.
Strategic science communication (Short Version): Delivered in Stellenbosch Se...John C. Besley
This is a shortened version of a talk I've prepared on science communication goals and objectives. I'll continue to update the presentation over time and appreciate the opportunity to talk about the ideas contained.
Sra 2014 presentation engagement goals and engagementJohn C. Besley
1) Scientists' perceptions and goals related to online public engagement were examined through a survey of 390 scientists.
2) The highest priority goals for scientists were correcting misinformation and defending science, while the lowest priority was building trust.
3) Past online engagement experience was the strongest predictor of willingness to engage online in the future, followed by perceived self-efficacy in achieving engagement goals. Older scientists were less willing to engage.
An invited talk given to a group of neuroethics researchers. The focus of the discussion was how we might think about the likely outcomes of engagement activities. This is similar to some previous talks but also includes some new bits and pieces that reflect our continued effort to work through these ideas. Appreciated the chance to share.
How did science get so political, and what does science itself tell us about how research is accepted (or not) in a politicized landscape? Questions like those were the basis of the much-heralded March edition of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, co-edited by Elizabeth Suhay and James N. Druckman.
Piggybacking off the success of that issue, Social Science Spaces and the AAPSS are hosting a webinar on May 14 at 9 a.m. Eastern that features Suhay, assistant professor of Government at the School of Public Affairs at American University and two of the authors in that special edition -- Dan M. Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and a professor of psychology at Yale Law School, and Francis X. Shen, McKnight Land-Grant Professor and associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota -- discussing the nexus of science, politics and law. The webinar is free and will include ample time for questions from the audience.
We are taught that science is an objective arbiter, separating fact from fiction. With this in mind, we might expect that when a majority of scientists state their belief in an empirical phenomenon—say, that human activities are contributing to climate change, or that humans evolved from lower life forms—that well-educated nonscientists would follow suit. Yet, given current politicized debates over climate change and evolution (and vaccines, and GMOs, and other scientific subjects), we know this is not the truth.
Again thinking of science as an objective arbiter, we might expect that science employed in the service of legal proceedings and lawmaking would be an uncontroversial affair, with experts converging in their interpretation of academic studies and those studies’ implications to the case or policy before them. Yet, here too reality is far from our idealized expectation, as legal professionals, policymakers, and ordinary citizens (in their roles as jurors and voters) frequently disagree over how laboratory findings translate into law and legislation.
Make no mistake: Science is our best bet for understanding the world around us and for crafting many legal decisions and much legislation. Yet, nonscientists don’t always consume science responsibly, sometimes refusing to accept scientific consensus, sometimes stretching the implications of novel areas of scientific study past their breaking point, sometimes “spinning” the outcomes of scientific studies in support of a desired political or legal outcome. In this webinar, we try to make sense of these biases in public understanding of science as well as in the application of science to law and public policy and recommend ways to overcome them.
Academic Partnerships Beyond DClinPsy: Enabling and Utilising the Resources o...Mike Marriott
Background: With approximately 20,000 undergraduate students starting degrees in psychology yearly and large academic staff groups linked to these cohorts, university psychology departments hold untapped potential benefits for many innovations that clinical psychologists would want to pursue. This workshop will aim to develop delegates’ understanding of the academic environment, and support them in identifying the ways in which their current interests and practices might align with the requirements of these environments. Delegates will leave with an action plan of achievable steps towards meaningful partnerships with their local academic colleagues.
Key Points: The workshop will be facilitated by an established academic who made the transition from full-time clinical practice, and will seek to bridge the distinct perspectives of these two worlds. Delegates will be introduced to the key features of the key performance indicators for academic institutions, with an overview of how these driving forces in academia can move students and academics towards meeting the needs of clinicians in practice. Using examples of developments from one of the largest UK providers of undergraduate psychology education, delegates will work with colleagues to identify the areas of their own practice that would be most likely to lead towards fruitful partnerships with local universities, creating achievable action plans to inspire each other with clear ways forward to take back to their practice.
Conclusion: The partnership work identified through this workshop will empower delegates who are practicing clinical psychologists to bring more of their innovative ideas to bear meaningful impact for the communities we serve.
AAAS 2016: Key Findings from NSB Science and Engineering Indicators 2016, Cha...John C. Besley
This presentation reports on key findings from the National Science Board's biennial chapter on public attitudes and understanding about S&T as presented in Science and Engineering Indicators. Views presented are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NSB.
SRA 2016: Do Scientists who Study 'Risky' Topic Communicate MoreJohn C. Besley
Presentation analyzed data from scientists from across a range of scientific societies to assess the degree to which scientists' beliefs about the public's risk perceptions are associated with scientists' with past communication behavior, willingness to communicate, communication objectives, and communication goals. The primary predictor variables were whether the scientists said they thought the public saw (1) too little risk in their area, (2) too much risk in their area, and (3) whether scientists thought their area was controversial.
Strategic science communication (Short Version): Delivered in Stellenbosch Se...John C. Besley
This is a shortened version of a talk I've prepared on science communication goals and objectives. I'll continue to update the presentation over time and appreciate the opportunity to talk about the ideas contained.
Sra 2014 presentation engagement goals and engagementJohn C. Besley
1) Scientists' perceptions and goals related to online public engagement were examined through a survey of 390 scientists.
2) The highest priority goals for scientists were correcting misinformation and defending science, while the lowest priority was building trust.
3) Past online engagement experience was the strongest predictor of willingness to engage online in the future, followed by perceived self-efficacy in achieving engagement goals. Older scientists were less willing to engage.
An invited talk given to a group of neuroethics researchers. The focus of the discussion was how we might think about the likely outcomes of engagement activities. This is similar to some previous talks but also includes some new bits and pieces that reflect our continued effort to work through these ideas. Appreciated the chance to share.
How Do You want Scientists to be PerceivedJohn C. Besley
Slides for a April 1 plenary talk at the International Society for Biosafety Research talk in Tarragona, Spain, April 1, 2019. The talk focuses on the idea of strategic science communication in the context of genetic engineering. It emphasizes the importance of setting behavioral goals and then figuring out what types of communication objectives could ethically help you reach these goals over time. It further argued that public engagement activities should be understood as tactics meant to foster cognitive engagement and thus the formation of meaningful beliefs. The primary emphasis of the talk was on choosing communication tactics that have the potential to foster beliefs about scientists' warmth, openness, value similarity, honesty, and competence.
This document summarizes research on scientists' communication behavior and willingness to engage with the public. Key findings include:
- Scientists have negative views of the public and media, but want to be helpful. They lack training in public engagement.
- Willingness to engage online is predicted by younger age, higher efficacy beliefs, and a desire to contribute to debates.
- Defending science against misinformation is scientists' top priority for online engagement goals. Prioritizing strategic goals depends on attitudes, norms, and efficacy related to those goals.
Understanding Attitudes to Science: Reviewing Public Attitudes ResearchMarilyn Booth
This document summarizes a review of public attitudes towards science based on previous survey research from 2000, 2005, and 2008. It discusses key findings around public understanding and awareness of science, perceptions of scientific research, trust in research findings and scientific institutions. It also provides implications for improving questions and scope in the next public attitudes survey in 2011.
The document summarizes key findings from the 2011 Public Attitudes to Science study in the UK. It found that while most of the public values science and sees its benefits, some remain concerned about regulation of scientists and potential negative consequences. Segmentation analysis identified groups with different levels of engagement, from "Confident Engagers" who are already highly engaged to "Indifferent" who are least engaged. Effective communication requires understanding these groups and their preferences to build understanding and trust in science.
China 2016; Being strategic in science communicationJohn C. Besley
Presentation delivered at Nanjing Agricultural University in May 2016. Provides overview of how we have been thinking about science communication as strategic behavior (based on previous presentations and NSF grant)
Scientists prioritize certain objectives and goals over others when engaging in public communication. The top priorities include informing and educating the public about scientific issues, generating interest and excitement about science, and defending science against falsehoods. However, simply increasing science literacy and knowledge may have limited impact, and scientists are often seen as competent but cold. More emphasis could be placed on objectives like showing the public that scientists care about society and are open and transparent. The effectiveness of different engagement tactics also requires further research.
The document summarizes a presentation by Dawn Wright on communicating science to non-experts. Some key points:
- Scientists need to better communicate their work to policymakers, as less than 2% of US Congress has a science background. Stories are persuasive ways to share data.
- Training is needed for future generations of scientists to engage with the media, policymakers, and the public through outreach, blogs, etc. This can benefit scientists' careers.
- An example showed communicating climate change health risks to policymakers could help prepare for disease outbreaks and reduce emissions through informed policy.
- Resources like COMPASS and Trellis aim to help scientists better share their work and make an impact through
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen science projectsDana Rotman
Online citizen science projects engage volunteers in collecting, analyzing, and curating scientific data. Existing projects have demonstrated the value of using volunteers to collect data, but few projects have reached the full collaborative potential of scientists and volunteers. Understanding the shared and unique motivations of these two groups can help designers establish the technical and social infrastructures needed to promote effective partnerships. We present findings from a study of the motivational factors affecting participation in ecological citizen science projects. We show that volunteers are motivated by a complex framework of factors that dynamically change throughout their cycle of work on scientific projects; this motivational framework is strongly affected by personal interests as well as external factors such as attribution and acknowledgment. Identifying the pivotal points of motivational shift and addressing them in the design of citizen-science systems will facilitate improved collaboration between scientists and volunteers.
Public Understanding of Science Seminar (26 October 2011)Marilyn Booth
The document summarizes the findings of a large study on public attitudes toward science in the UK. It identifies six audience segments based on levels of engagement and views of science: Confident Engagers, Distrustful Engagers, Late Adopters, The Concerned, Disengaged Sceptics, and The Indifferent. While public interest in science is rising, many still lack understanding of processes like peer review and have concerns about regulation and scientists' intentions. Effective engagement requires tailoring approaches to different audience needs.
OpenAIRE webinar "From Open Science to Inclusive Science" with Paola MasuzzoOpenAIRE
A lot is happening in the Open Science world, as everybody realizes more and more the importance of open, transparent and participatory research practices. However, we tend to forget, in the ongoing conversations, what Open Science means to different audiences, coming from diverse or even underrepresented backgrounds.
In this webinar, I talk about Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Inclusiveness.
I make the case that research excellence, as we know it, hampers the real achievement of these values, which are non-negotiable and must be built into the foundation of what we are all trying to achieve in the ongoing efforts of democratizing knowledge.
Webinar for the #OAWeek 2019 OpenAIRE series.
More details at https://www.openaire.eu/item/from-open-science-to-inclusive-science
AAAS S&E indicators Chapter 7 Overview Presentation: Public Attitudes and Und...John C. Besley
Presentation by John C. Besley at the 2014 Meeting of the AAAS. Focus was key results from Chapter 7 of the 2014 Science and Engineering Indicators. Besley was the lead author of the chapter, although the views expressed in the presentation are his own and not necessarily those of the National Science Foundation or the National Science Board.
This presentation focused on scientists' goals for communication and made a point of differentiating behavioral goals from nearer-term communication objectives (i.e., beliefs, feelings, frames that result from different communication choices. The data used came from two surveys of scientists; one done in the United States and one done in Canada.
The document discusses the University of Michigan Health Sciences Libraries' use of Second Life for educational outreach and building interdisciplinary communities. It outlines their three phase plan: 1) Engagement through skills building and connecting with other SL resources, 2) Outreach by promoting SL opportunities on campus, and 3) Developing interdisciplinary learning communities by opening their virtual island and hosting events. Assessment found their brownbag discussions and tours of other virtual spaces were most popular. They received positive feedback but also suggestions to improve accessibility for new users and focus content.
Evolving and emerging scholarly communication services in libraries: public a...Claire Stewart
This document provides an overview of a guest lecture about evolving scholarly communication services in libraries and their role in supporting public access compliance and assessing research impact. It discusses challenges libraries face in helping researchers comply with public access policies from funders. It also explores metrics and indicators used to measure research impact, noting limitations, and how libraries can help address this complex issue by leveraging their expertise in managing scholarly information and data.
BIS/Ipsos MORI: Learning From Public Attitudes to Science 2011Marilyn Booth
- The document summarizes findings from a 2011 UK study on public attitudes toward science. It identified six main audience segments with differing levels of engagement and concerns about science.
- While most value science, concerns often stem from lack of understanding of the scientific process. Public engagement is challenging as more information does not always reduce anxiety or increase feelings of being informed.
- Targeting communication to different audience segments identified in the research could help ensure more diverse participation in public discussions about science issues.
This document provides guidance on how to conduct crowdfunded scientific research experiments through Experiment.com. It recommends developing a clear research project, sharing details about the science openly online, and publishing results in order to involve the public and receive funding. Key steps include preparing the project plan, getting early feedback, finding new and existing audiences online, and treating crowdfunding as an opportunity rather than begging for money. The overall goal is to enable more independent scientific research.
2023 - MI Farm Bureau - Trust - How do you want to be perceived.pptxJohn C. Besley
Talk shared with the Michigan Farm Bureau Voice of Agriculture Conference in Traverse City, MI. Emphasis was on fostering a discussion about how the farm community could be more specific/strategic in trying to foster trust by demonstrating and communicating trustworthiness (i.e., ability/expertise, benevolence/caring, integrity, openness, shared values).
More Related Content
Similar to AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about Engagment
How Do You want Scientists to be PerceivedJohn C. Besley
Slides for a April 1 plenary talk at the International Society for Biosafety Research talk in Tarragona, Spain, April 1, 2019. The talk focuses on the idea of strategic science communication in the context of genetic engineering. It emphasizes the importance of setting behavioral goals and then figuring out what types of communication objectives could ethically help you reach these goals over time. It further argued that public engagement activities should be understood as tactics meant to foster cognitive engagement and thus the formation of meaningful beliefs. The primary emphasis of the talk was on choosing communication tactics that have the potential to foster beliefs about scientists' warmth, openness, value similarity, honesty, and competence.
This document summarizes research on scientists' communication behavior and willingness to engage with the public. Key findings include:
- Scientists have negative views of the public and media, but want to be helpful. They lack training in public engagement.
- Willingness to engage online is predicted by younger age, higher efficacy beliefs, and a desire to contribute to debates.
- Defending science against misinformation is scientists' top priority for online engagement goals. Prioritizing strategic goals depends on attitudes, norms, and efficacy related to those goals.
Understanding Attitudes to Science: Reviewing Public Attitudes ResearchMarilyn Booth
This document summarizes a review of public attitudes towards science based on previous survey research from 2000, 2005, and 2008. It discusses key findings around public understanding and awareness of science, perceptions of scientific research, trust in research findings and scientific institutions. It also provides implications for improving questions and scope in the next public attitudes survey in 2011.
The document summarizes key findings from the 2011 Public Attitudes to Science study in the UK. It found that while most of the public values science and sees its benefits, some remain concerned about regulation of scientists and potential negative consequences. Segmentation analysis identified groups with different levels of engagement, from "Confident Engagers" who are already highly engaged to "Indifferent" who are least engaged. Effective communication requires understanding these groups and their preferences to build understanding and trust in science.
China 2016; Being strategic in science communicationJohn C. Besley
Presentation delivered at Nanjing Agricultural University in May 2016. Provides overview of how we have been thinking about science communication as strategic behavior (based on previous presentations and NSF grant)
Scientists prioritize certain objectives and goals over others when engaging in public communication. The top priorities include informing and educating the public about scientific issues, generating interest and excitement about science, and defending science against falsehoods. However, simply increasing science literacy and knowledge may have limited impact, and scientists are often seen as competent but cold. More emphasis could be placed on objectives like showing the public that scientists care about society and are open and transparent. The effectiveness of different engagement tactics also requires further research.
The document summarizes a presentation by Dawn Wright on communicating science to non-experts. Some key points:
- Scientists need to better communicate their work to policymakers, as less than 2% of US Congress has a science background. Stories are persuasive ways to share data.
- Training is needed for future generations of scientists to engage with the media, policymakers, and the public through outreach, blogs, etc. This can benefit scientists' careers.
- An example showed communicating climate change health risks to policymakers could help prepare for disease outbreaks and reduce emissions through informed policy.
- Resources like COMPASS and Trellis aim to help scientists better share their work and make an impact through
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen science projectsDana Rotman
Online citizen science projects engage volunteers in collecting, analyzing, and curating scientific data. Existing projects have demonstrated the value of using volunteers to collect data, but few projects have reached the full collaborative potential of scientists and volunteers. Understanding the shared and unique motivations of these two groups can help designers establish the technical and social infrastructures needed to promote effective partnerships. We present findings from a study of the motivational factors affecting participation in ecological citizen science projects. We show that volunteers are motivated by a complex framework of factors that dynamically change throughout their cycle of work on scientific projects; this motivational framework is strongly affected by personal interests as well as external factors such as attribution and acknowledgment. Identifying the pivotal points of motivational shift and addressing them in the design of citizen-science systems will facilitate improved collaboration between scientists and volunteers.
Public Understanding of Science Seminar (26 October 2011)Marilyn Booth
The document summarizes the findings of a large study on public attitudes toward science in the UK. It identifies six audience segments based on levels of engagement and views of science: Confident Engagers, Distrustful Engagers, Late Adopters, The Concerned, Disengaged Sceptics, and The Indifferent. While public interest in science is rising, many still lack understanding of processes like peer review and have concerns about regulation and scientists' intentions. Effective engagement requires tailoring approaches to different audience needs.
OpenAIRE webinar "From Open Science to Inclusive Science" with Paola MasuzzoOpenAIRE
A lot is happening in the Open Science world, as everybody realizes more and more the importance of open, transparent and participatory research practices. However, we tend to forget, in the ongoing conversations, what Open Science means to different audiences, coming from diverse or even underrepresented backgrounds.
In this webinar, I talk about Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Inclusiveness.
I make the case that research excellence, as we know it, hampers the real achievement of these values, which are non-negotiable and must be built into the foundation of what we are all trying to achieve in the ongoing efforts of democratizing knowledge.
Webinar for the #OAWeek 2019 OpenAIRE series.
More details at https://www.openaire.eu/item/from-open-science-to-inclusive-science
AAAS S&E indicators Chapter 7 Overview Presentation: Public Attitudes and Und...John C. Besley
Presentation by John C. Besley at the 2014 Meeting of the AAAS. Focus was key results from Chapter 7 of the 2014 Science and Engineering Indicators. Besley was the lead author of the chapter, although the views expressed in the presentation are his own and not necessarily those of the National Science Foundation or the National Science Board.
This presentation focused on scientists' goals for communication and made a point of differentiating behavioral goals from nearer-term communication objectives (i.e., beliefs, feelings, frames that result from different communication choices. The data used came from two surveys of scientists; one done in the United States and one done in Canada.
The document discusses the University of Michigan Health Sciences Libraries' use of Second Life for educational outreach and building interdisciplinary communities. It outlines their three phase plan: 1) Engagement through skills building and connecting with other SL resources, 2) Outreach by promoting SL opportunities on campus, and 3) Developing interdisciplinary learning communities by opening their virtual island and hosting events. Assessment found their brownbag discussions and tours of other virtual spaces were most popular. They received positive feedback but also suggestions to improve accessibility for new users and focus content.
Evolving and emerging scholarly communication services in libraries: public a...Claire Stewart
This document provides an overview of a guest lecture about evolving scholarly communication services in libraries and their role in supporting public access compliance and assessing research impact. It discusses challenges libraries face in helping researchers comply with public access policies from funders. It also explores metrics and indicators used to measure research impact, noting limitations, and how libraries can help address this complex issue by leveraging their expertise in managing scholarly information and data.
BIS/Ipsos MORI: Learning From Public Attitudes to Science 2011Marilyn Booth
- The document summarizes findings from a 2011 UK study on public attitudes toward science. It identified six main audience segments with differing levels of engagement and concerns about science.
- While most value science, concerns often stem from lack of understanding of the scientific process. Public engagement is challenging as more information does not always reduce anxiety or increase feelings of being informed.
- Targeting communication to different audience segments identified in the research could help ensure more diverse participation in public discussions about science issues.
This document provides guidance on how to conduct crowdfunded scientific research experiments through Experiment.com. It recommends developing a clear research project, sharing details about the science openly online, and publishing results in order to involve the public and receive funding. Key steps include preparing the project plan, getting early feedback, finding new and existing audiences online, and treating crowdfunding as an opportunity rather than begging for money. The overall goal is to enable more independent scientific research.
Similar to AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about Engagment (20)
2023 - MI Farm Bureau - Trust - How do you want to be perceived.pptxJohn C. Besley
Talk shared with the Michigan Farm Bureau Voice of Agriculture Conference in Traverse City, MI. Emphasis was on fostering a discussion about how the farm community could be more specific/strategic in trying to foster trust by demonstrating and communicating trustworthiness (i.e., ability/expertise, benevolence/caring, integrity, openness, shared values).
2022 - Book Talk: Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.pptxJohn C. Besley
This document discusses communication strategies for science engagement. It emphasizes the importance of:
1) Having clear and specific behavioral goals for target audiences rather than just general communication objectives. Goals could include increasing trust in scientists or influencing policymakers' funding decisions.
2) Understanding how communication objectives like shaping perceptions, emotions, and frames relate to behavioral goals, with objectives affecting goals indirectly.
3) Using evidence and social science theories to inform the choice of objectives and tactics, and evaluating their effectiveness, rather than just skills like storytelling. Strategic success requires achieving objectives that lead to goals.
4) Considering both fast, intuitive communication that relies on cognitive shortcuts, and slow, deliberative communication that aims to
SciPEP Goal Survey - Initial Thinking v2.pptxJohn C. Besley
This document discusses goals and objectives for scientists communicating their research to non-scientists. It proposes surveying scientists to understand their goals for communication and prioritization of different audiences and behavioral goals. The discussion focuses on categorizing goals as related to behavior, trust/legitimacy, or ensuring scientists make the best research decisions. It also considers asking scientists about priorities for communication objectives and perceptions of science communicators. The goal is to have an evidence-based understanding of scientists' communication goals to improve conversations around achieving those goals.
Workshop at SciTalk '22 on strategic science communication in which we make a strong argument for focusing on behavioral goals and communication objectives as beliefs, feelings, and frames.
2022 Talk for for NIH Office of AIDS Research and Sexual Gender and Minority ...John C. Besley
This is a 30 minute talk from 2022 for participants in a post bachelors degree fellows program provided the NIH Office of AIDS Research and the Sexual Gender and Minority Research Office. The talk includes some new slides, thinking on strategic science communication
2022 - Fostering Strategic Science Communication related to TrustJohn C. Besley
This document summarizes a presentation on strategic science communication. It discusses how most science communication training focuses on individual tactical skills rather than strategic goals and objectives. It advocates treating communication choices as behaviors that can be influenced by attitudes, norms, and efficacy beliefs. The presentation argues that communication objectives that target evaluative beliefs, feelings, and frames are key to effective strategic communication. It provides models for how trust is built and discusses researching communication choices as planned behaviors. The overall message is that science communicators should be clearer about their goals and objectives in order to be strategic and effective.
Brief webinar on science talks at SRA in which I emphasize being clear about your goal and thinking about what content to include to achieve that goal. You don't just have to talk about the science; you should talk about the impact, etc.
LTAR 2021 - Strategic Science Communication - A Focus on GoalsJohn C. Besley
Short talk (and long discussion) about the value of being strategic in science communication the context of the annual meeting of the Long Term Agroecosystem Research Network (LTAR).
Talk on Trust and Trustworthiness in the USAJohn C. Besley
This document discusses trust and trustworthiness in science and scientists in the USA. It presents data showing levels of confidence in various institutions like the military, scientific community, and Supreme Court over time. It differentiates between behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs, noting the importance for communication strategy. Building trust requires demonstrating trustworthiness through behaviors, what is said, and how it is communicated. While efforts to communicate trustworthiness are ethical, fostering these beliefs will take time and organizations cannot reach everyone. Scientific groups should work to genuinely be trustworthy and address any weaknesses in how they are perceived.
2021 PCST - Response to Mike Schaefer's KeynoteJohn C. Besley
Slides for brief response to Mike Schaefer's 2021 keynote on audience segmentation in which I agree with Mike but also argue for the importance of setting communication goals before segmenting.
2021 - Communicating Astronomy with the Public TalkJohn C. Besley
An updated version of the 'strategic science communication' talk for astronomy communicators. Focuses more deeply on the goals that might make the most sense for basic science researchers.
2021 Hubbard Brook - Three questions about trust buildingJohn C. Besley
These are the slides from a 30 minute discussion about how we might think about trust building in the context of stakeholder engagement activities. Key argument is to recognize why we want people to see us in certain ways and then to recognize the dimensions of 'people perceptions.' Ultimately, strategy is needed to prioritize and implement procedures that ensure that we self-present in the way we want to be seen.
These are the slides from my 2020 talk on what Society for Risk Analysis members think about the potential communication goal of ensuring policymakers consider scientific evidence when making decisions. Key message is that scientists are open to the society helping members pursue such goals and that the best predictor of support are perceived likelihood for impact, potential for engagement enjoyment, and ethicality.
2020 Slides to Support Short SRA Plenary TalkJohn C. Besley
This document summarizes 40 years of risk communication research. It discusses what is now known about the psychological processes underlying risk perceptions and decision making, the evaluative beliefs that influence risk behaviors, the importance of affect and emotions, and how to ethically use communication tactics to influence behaviors. However, it notes that more needs to be done to get the scientific community to apply a more scientific approach to risk communication and rebuild trust in science.
This document discusses a study of the culture of public engagement at Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest research sites. It presents survey and interview findings about scientists' levels and types of public engagement activities, attitudes towards engagement, and priorities for engagement goals and objectives. The study aims to understand the engagement culture at the sites and whether engagement efforts should focus more on strategic goals and aligned tactics and communication objectives.
1) The document reports on surveys conducted in 2017 and 2019 of scientists at Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest to understand their attitudes towards public engagement and perceptions of engagement staff.
2) The surveys found moderate levels of self-reported public engagement activities among scientists, with willingness and opportunities for different engagement types varying.
3) Perceptions of engagement staff were generally positive, seeing them as respectful and competent, though interactions were often indirect or infrequent.
4) Future work includes additional interviews and surveys to further understand drivers of engagement among scientists and how to better support long-term public engagement infrastructure.
This document summarizes the work of understanding public engagement culture at Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest over 2.5 years. Interviews and surveys of scientists were conducted in 2017, 2019, and will continue in 2020+ to track changes in engagement culture and its impacts over the long term. The path to better science communication involves ensuring organizational support for scientists and collaboration. As long-term research institutions embedded in communities, Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest have an opportunity to enhance their impacts through building a culture that seriously supports public engagement.
Presentation shared with National Press Foundation fellows in Paris, France, on November 21, 2019. Key arguments were that overall views about scientists are quite positive both in an absolute sense as well as compared to other groups. However, we get a lot more information if we look at sub-dimensions of trustworthiness, and think about trust-related beliefs in the context of specific issues.
Video and audio available at: https://nationalpress.org/topic/confidence-in-scientists
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...TechSoup
Whether you're new to SEO or looking to refine your existing strategies, this webinar will provide you with actionable insights and practical tips to elevate your nonprofit's online presence.
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptxEduSkills OECD
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two HeartsSteve Thomason
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 InventoryCeline George
In this slide, we'll explore how to set up warehouses and locations in Odoo 17 Inventory. This will help us manage our stock effectively, track inventory levels, and streamline warehouse operations.
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
Philippine Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) CurriculumMJDuyan
(𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝟏𝟎𝟎) (𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝟏)-𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐏𝐏 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬:
- Understand the goals and objectives of the Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) curriculum, recognizing its importance in fostering practical life skills and values among students. Students will also be able to identify the key components and subjects covered, such as agriculture, home economics, industrial arts, and information and communication technology.
𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐫:
-Define entrepreneurship, distinguishing it from general business activities by emphasizing its focus on innovation, risk-taking, and value creation. Students will describe the characteristics and traits of successful entrepreneurs, including their roles and responsibilities, and discuss the broader economic and social impacts of entrepreneurial activities on both local and global scales.
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
This presentation was provided by Racquel Jemison, Ph.D., Christina MacLaughlin, Ph.D., and Paulomi Majumder. Ph.D., all of the American Chemical Society, for the second session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session Two: 'Expanding Pathways to Publishing Careers,' was held June 13, 2024.
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
Andreas Schleicher presents PISA 2022 Volume III - Creative Thinking - 18 Jun...EduSkills OECD
Andreas Schleicher, Director of Education and Skills at the OECD presents at the launch of PISA 2022 Volume III - Creative Minds, Creative Schools on 18 June 2024.
AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about Engagment
1. This material is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL
14241214-421723. 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.
AAAS Members Views about Science
Communication Goals and Objectives
In the context of …
Face-to-Face Communication Online Communication Mediated Communication
2. Strategy
Project goals and background
Survey Findings: Past behavior, Willingness, Goals, and Objectives
Implications and future research
1
2
3
3. 3
We must “supplement our studies and activities on the
understanding of science by the public, with studies and
activities on the understanding of the public by scientists.”
Lévy-Leblond, 1992
4. 4
Our data …
AAAS members with Ph.D. and at a U.S. university
(n = ~1050, 9% response rate)
Age: 61 (SE = .38)
Male: 69%
Field:
• Biology-Medical Science: 53%
• Physics/Astrology: 11%
• Social Science: 10%
• Geological Science: 7%
• Engineering: 6%
• Computer
Science/Mathematics: 5%
Funding:
• NSF: 36%
• NIH: 33%
• NGO: 26%
• Other federal: 24%
• Industry: 19%
• Other: 11%
• DOD: 8%
5. 5
Science Public Engagement as “Planned Behavior”
Attitudes about engagement/
engagement audiences
Descriptive and injunctive
norms about engagement
Efficacy beliefs about
engagement
Willingness to engage /
Priorities for Engagement
Engagement
• Past research has focused on
predicting the engagement amount
• Current research is focused on
predicting prioritization of
specific engagement objectivesPrimary Research Question:
To what degree are attitudes, norms, and
efficacy associated with views about engagement?
6. 6
Are AAAS members engaging?
34
45
58
59
13
19
14
5
30
25
19
14
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Face-to-Face
Media
Direct
Online
Never Once 2-5 times
6-11 times About once a month Multiple times per month
Once a week or more
“To start, about how often have you engaged with the public on science in the last year?”
n = ~1050
AAAS scientists
are engaging,
with F2F most
common
7. Are AAAS members engaging?
34
45
58
59
13
19
14
5
30
25
19
14
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Face-to-Face
Media
Direct
Online
Never Once 2-5 times 6-11 times About once a month Multiple times per month Once a week or more
“To start, about how often have you engaged with the public on science in the last year?”
18 43 27
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very negative Very positive
“[H]ow negative or positive would you say your experience … was? (7-pt. scale)
M = 5.83, SE = .04
n = ~1050
8. 8
Are AAAS members willing to engage?
“Looking forward, how willing would you be to take part in the following types of
engagement or outreach in the next 12 months?” (7-pt. scale)
17
21
18
14
28
24
24
13
36
28
27
15
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Face-to-Face
Media
Direct
Online
Not at all willing Very willing
M = 5.64, SE = .05
M = 5.14, SE = .05
M = 5.26, SE = .05
M = 3.99, SE = .05
n = ~1050
AAAS scientists
are willing to
engage (online is
least popular)
11. 1
What SOCIETAL goals do AAAS scientists prioritize?
“What are the most important or unimportant PERSONAL goals that scientists such as
yourself should have when …” (Very Low/Very high Importance)?
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Getting policy makers to use
scientific evidence
Helping ensure our culture values
science
Helping people use science to
make better personal decisions
Obtaining adequate funding for
scientific research
Getting more young people to
choose scientific careers
Helping to diversify the STEM
workforce
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Policy choice and
culture of science
highest priorities
n = ~1050
12. 1
What SOCIETAL goals do AAAS scientists prioritize?
“What are the most important or unimportant PERSONAL goals that scientists such as
yourself should have when …” (7-pt. scale: Very Low-Very high Importance)?
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Increasing the impact of research
Fulfilling a sense of duty to society
Personal enjoyment
Meeting other scientists
Obtaining research funding
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Increasing impact
and sense of duty
high priorities
n = ~1050
14. 1
What communication objectives do the scientists prioritize?
“[W]hat are the most important or unimportant communication objectives that scientists
such as yourself should have when taking part in _____? (Very Low/Very high Importance)?
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Helping to inform people about
scientific issues
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Defending science from those who
spread falsehoods
Showing that the scientific
community cares about society's…
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Showing that scientists share
community values
Framing research implications ... in
a way that resonates with their…
Hearing what others think about
scientific issues
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Traditional
goals seen as
most important
n = ~1050
15. How ethical are the objectives?
“This objective is ethical.” (Attitude)
(Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Defending science from those
who spread falsehoods
Helping to inform people about
scientific issues
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Showing that the scientific
community cares about…
Hearing what others think
about scientific issues
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Showing that scientists share
community values
Framing research implications
... in a way that resonates with…
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Some concern
about framing
and identification
n = ~1050
16. What would my peers think?
“Scientists who pursue this objective would be well regarded by their peers.”
(Injunctive Norm) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Defending science from those
who spread falsehoods
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Helping to inform people about
scientific issues
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Showing that the scientific
community cares about…
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Framing research implications ...
in a way that resonates with…
Showing that scientists share
community values
Hearing what others think about
scientific issues
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Most think other
scientists expect
priority on
traditional goals
n = ~1050
17. What do my peers do?
“My colleagues would put a high priority on this objective.”
(Descriptive Norm) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Defending science from those
who spread falsehoods
Helping to inform people
about scientific issues
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Showing that the scientific
community cares about…
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Framing research implications
... in a way that resonates…
Showing that scientists share
community values
Hearing what others think
about scientific issues
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Most think other
scientists would
put priority on
traditional goals
n = ~1050
18. Could I accomplish this objective?
“I have the skills needed to achieve this objective.”
(Internal Efficacy) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Defending science from those
who spread falsehoods
Helping to inform people about
scientific issues
Showing that scientists share
community values
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Hearing what others think
about scientific issues
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Showing that the scientific
community cares about…
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Framing research implications
... in a way that resonates…
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Most scientists
feel they have
communication
skills they need
n = ~1050
19. Is achieving this objective possible?
“Achieving this objective is possible for a good communicator.”
(External Efficacy) (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Helping to inform people about
scientific issues
Defending science from those
who spread falsehoods
Showing that scientists share
community values
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Hearing what others think
about scientific issues
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Framing research implications
... in a way that resonates…
Showing that the scientific
community cares about…
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
More concern
that some goals
may not be
achievable
n = ~1050
20. Have I thought about this before?
“Prior to this survey, I had thought a lot about this potential engagement objective.”
(Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Defending science from those
who spread falsehoods
Helping to inform people about
scientific issues
Hearing what others think about
scientific issues
Showing the scientific
community's expertise
Showing that scientists share
community values
Demonstrating the scientific
community's openness and…
Getting people interested or
excited about science
Showing that the scientific
community cares about…
Framing research implications ...
in a way that resonates with…
Face-to-Face
Media
Online
Many of the
objectives asked
about were
unfamiliar
n = ~1050
22. Modeling
objectives …
n = ~1050
Very Little
happening with
engagement mode,
demographics,
field, or funding
OLS
Regression
Models for
Objective
Importance
(Standardized
Betas)
23. Modeling
objectives …
n = ~1050
OLS
Regression
Models for
Objective
Importance
(Standardized
Betas)
Ethical concerns, injunctive norms,
external efficacy, and familiarity the
most consistent predictors of
communication objective prioritization
24. Summary
AAAS scientists …
• … are willing to engage
• … have positive experiences with engagement
• … want to achieve social and
personal goals through engagement
But …
• … most prioritize traditional communication
objectives (inform, defend, excite)
• … prioritize potentially important strategic
communication objectives, a little less
(e.g. showing values and listening)
Key Limitations:
• One society analyzed (so far)
• Low response rate (9%)
• Hard to ask about goals/objectives
without suggesting goals/objectives
• Hard to get scientists not to
prioritize every goal/objective
This material is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL
14241214-421723. 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.
25. Summary
AAAS scientists …
• … are willing to engage
• … have positive experiences with engagement
• … want to achieve social and
personal goals through engagement
But …
• … most prioritize traditional communication
objectives (inform, defend, excite)
• … prioritize potentially strategic communication
objectives, a little less (e.g. showing values and listening)
These are the
objectives science
communication
scholars focus on …
26. Possible Implications
If you want a scientist to prioritize an objective …
• … make sure they know about it
• … show that it’s ethical
• … show that it’s valued by peers
• … show that it works
This material is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL
14241214-421723. 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
Note: Qualitative interviews with communication trainers (presented last year) suggested little explicit focus on strategic objectives in training efforts