This study examined scientists' priorities for online public communication and the factors that influence these priorities. A survey of 390 scientists found that they prioritize defending science and educating the public. Building trust and tailoring messages were less valued goals. Attitudes, norms, and efficacy from the theory of planned behavior predicted scientists' valuations of different communication goals. Educating the public was influenced by a different set of factors than other goals. The findings suggest ways to change scientists' perceptions and increase skills related to specific communication goals. Future research could identify more goals, improve theoretical frameworks, collect longitudinal data, and expand to international samples.

1. 1
Scientists’ Prioritization of Goals for
Online Public Communication
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

2. Broad context
3
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)

3. More attention to PES on the ground
5
• More PES training
• Pedagogical shifts
• Scientist-to-scientist advice
• Popular books
• Third-party resources
• Active blogging community

4. More research on PES
6

5. 7
This research …
has provided a strong baseline understanding of
scientists’ perceptions and activity related to
PES

6. 8
Research has removed the PES peel …
… it’s now time to focus on the PES
fruit

7. 9
Aim to examine the nature of PES
think about PES from the perspective of
strategic communication

8. 10
When a scientist engages …
what is she or he hoping to accomplish? what
are their goals?

9. 5 goals
12
Educate
Defend
science
Excite Build trust
Tailor
messages
Strategic goalsTraditional goals

10. Research Questions
13
1
2
3
4
What goals do scientists prioritize when communicating
with the public?
To what extent do scientists think their colleagues share
these same goals?
What factors shape scientists’ goals for communicating
with the public?
To what extent do these factors vary across different
communication goals?

11. Method
14
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)

12. 15
Descriptive Results

13. 2013 Scientist Survey: Goals
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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
Strategic
goals
16
“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”

14. 2013 Scientist Survey: Goals
5.96 5.88
5.59
5 4.96
5.72
5.35
5.18
4.18
4.44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
defensive knowledge excite trust messaging
Own priorities
Colleagues' priorities
17
“How big a priority … for your colleagues?”
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was the “lowest priority” and 7 was the “highest priority”
Respondents believe
they
value all communication
goals more than their
colleagues; biggest
discrepancy is
associated
with “trust”

15. 19
Multivariate Results

16. Predictors of each of the 5 online comm goals
20
Model specification for hierarchical regressions
DVs
Controls
Norms
Attitudes
Scientific field
Efficacy
age, gender, ideology, productivity,
career level, science news online /
offline, engagement experience
biomedicine, chemistry, physics/astronomy,
social science
fairness: external procedural, fairness: external
distributive, personal enjoyment, goal ethicality (goal-
specific)
communication training, external efficacy (goal-specific),
internal efficacy (goal-specific)
subjective norms, descriptive norms, perceptions of
colleagues’ communication priorities (goal-specific)
defend | educate | excite | build trust | messaging

17. Regression
results
21
Models yield
strong
explanatory
power
Standardized betas
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

18. Regression
results
22
Not much
going on with
demographics
or field
Standardized betas
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

19. Regression
results
23
Predictors
that cut
across the
goals
Standardized betas
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

20. Regression
results
24
The education
goal is the
most different
in terms of its
predictors
Standardized betas
* p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

21. Key findings
25
Scientists prioritize online public communication that is designed to defend
science and educate
Scientists find the least value in the goals that are most likely to lead to
positive engagement outcomes: building trust and tailoring messages
Scientists’ valuations of specific communication goals are associated with key
predictors from the TPB (attitudes, norms, efficacy)
The traditional goal of educating the public turns on a somewhat different set
of factors than the other goals

22. Practical Applications
26
Increase perceived ethicality of specific communication goals
Change beliefs about colleagues’ priorities for online communication
Increase perceived impacts of specific communication goals
Increase perceived personal skills related to specific communication goals

23. What’s next?
27
Long-term goal: help build a community focused on evidence-based science
communication
Upcoming project PES research needs
‣ 2-year NSF-AISL “Pathways”
project that will enable:
‣ Qualitative interviews with
engagement trainers
‣ Surveys with members from > 10
scientific societies
‣ Experiments testing messages
related to communication goals
‣ Identify more goals
‣ Better theorizing
‣ Longitudinal data
‣ Operational consistency
‣ International data

24. 28
Contact us
Anthony Dudo
dudo@utexas.ed
u
John C. Besley
jbesley@msu.edu