This is a talk scheduled for August 15, 2015 to the BEACON retreat. The work is work in progress; future iterations will build on this set of slides.

1. Thinking about objectives and
goals for science communication
John C. Besley, Ph.D.
Ellis N. Brandt Chair
College of Communication Arts and Sciences

2. Our schedule together …
12:00-13:00: Goals/objectives discussion
13:00-13:45: General discussion
13:00-13:25: Small group discussion
13:25-13:45: Large group discussion
My objectives
1. You will think about engagement as a strategic
act that involves purposeful choice of long-term
goals and intermediate objectives.
2. You will think about engagement tactics and
skills in terms of whether they can help you
achieve your intermediate objectives.

3. How many of you have taken part in a “Science Festival”

4. How many of you have taken part in a “Science Café”

5. How many of you have taken part in science
discussion panel meant for non-scientists

6. How many of you blog about science?

7. How many of you tweet about science?

8. How many of have ever talked to a reporter about science?

9. How many of you have ever talked to
a government official about science?

10. Engagement is …
Face-to-face
Direct w/policy-makers
Online
Mediated

11. Engagement is …
Face-to-face
Direct w/policy-makers
Online
Mediated
http://ceblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/brain-system1-system2.jpg

12. Numbers vary … but scientists clearly engage
• 63% interacted with a journalist in last year
Dunwoody and Ryan, 1985
• 70% interacted with a journalist in last 3 years
Peters, Brossard, de Cheveigné, Dunwoody, 2008
• 51% have ever interacted with journalist
AAAS 2015
• 33% engaged directly with policy-makers
Royal Society 2006
• 24% blogged about science
AAAS 2015
• 13% worked with a science center/museum
Royal Society 2006
Our own AAAS data (2013, n = 388)
• 75% had engaged face-to-face
• 49% had engaged online
• 45% had interacted with the media
• 30% had “other”-wise engaged
*All work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas

13. Most science communication training …
• Focuses on writing/speaking skills
• Focuses on honing YOUR message
• Understanding media/political norms
• Focuses on learning to use technology

14. What happens if you get really good
at communicating the wrong stuff?
I don’t mean
bad content…

15. What does it mean to be an “effective” communicator?

16. In strategic communication:
Effective = Achieving Your Goals

17. What do you want to ULTIMATELY
achieve through public engagement?
(Write it down)

18. How many of you wrote:
• Raise awareness of XYX topic
• Teach people about XYZ topic
• Correct myths about XYZ topic
• Get people interested in XYZ topic
• Build positive image of science
• Get people to think about XYZ topic in a new way
The may be good things … but I do not
think of them as ULTIMATE goals …
• Key question: Why do you
want to “raise awareness,” etc.

19. How many of you wrote:
• Seek a specific policy position (e.g. climate action)
• Seek more funding for science
• Seek more freedom for scientific endeavors
• Make the world healthier, wealthier, and wiser
• Promote science as a career*
To me … these are the ULTIMATE goals
(*this may be an intermediate objective)

20. Tactics, objectives, and goals
*Work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas
Scientists may/should
also have personal
goals (enhance career
and sense of impact)
Channels provide
different
“affordances”
Not every
objective is
equally effective …

21. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
It is true that
science literacy is
low, low, low

22. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Also true that
nobody knows
much about much

23. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Knowledge has
only limited impact
on attitudes

24. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness

25. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Knowledge has
only limited impact
on attitudes

26. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Also lots of
‘information
provision’
experiments

27. 2013 AAAS Scientist Survey: Objectives
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
objectives
“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”
BUT scientists
love the
‘literacy’
objective …

28. SHARING knowledge will always be a
central part of science communication
(But …)

29. Tactics, objectives, and goals
*Work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas
If not just
knowledge, what
else can we
focus on?

30. A few thoughts about ethics

31. Objective:
Build positive views
about science/scientists
Those involved in
science have
a generally
positive image?

32. Objective:
Build positive views
about science/scientists
Those involved in
science have
a generally
positive image?

33. Objective:
Build positive views
about science/scientists
Those involved in
science have
a generally
positive image?

34. Objective:
Build positive views about science/scientists
But there’s
a catch …
You’re seen
as competent
but cold

35. 2013 AAAS Scientist Survey: Objectives
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
objectives
“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”

36. If warmth is so important, how
can scientists be seen as more warm

37. WARM COLORS
(This a joke)

38. Face-to-face
Direct w/policy-makers
Online
Mediated
Public Engagement
= Positive Public Interaction

39. I have questions about
the impact of these …
(Research in progress)

40. And these too…
(Research in progress)
Funny and/or cathartic
Equal effective communication

41. And these too…
(Research in progress)

42. Tactics, objectives, and goals
*Work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas
If not just
knowledge, what
else can we
focus on?

43. Tversksy, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of
decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
Classic work on heuristics …

44. Tversksy, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of
decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

45. “Frames are interpretive storylines
that set a specific train of thought in
motion, communicating why an issue
might be a problem, who or what
might be responsible for it, and what
should be done about it.”
Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)
Nisbet, Matthew C. 2010. "Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement." In
Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, edited by L. A. Kahlor and P. A. Stout, 40-67.

46. http://sfa.frameworksinstitute.org/
Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)

47. “Frames are interpretive storylines
that set a specific train of thought in
motion, communicating why an issue
might be a problem, who or what
might be responsible for it, and what
should be done about it.”
This is really about _______________ and how ____________ is/are
responsible for ____________. We therefore need to _____________.
This is really about Bill Gates copied Apple and how Microsoft is
responsible for copyright infringement. We therefore need to sue.
Re. How should we think about the origins of the graphical user interface?
This is really about Apple and Microsoft both borrowed an idea from
the public conversation (i.e., Xerox) and how no one is responsible for
damages. We therefore need to do nothing, except compete.

48. Framing quiz …
Is it an estate tax or a _______________
Is it oil drilling or ___________________
Is it eavesdropping or _______________
Is it global warming or _______________
Is it a used car or a __________________
Is it a secretary or a __________________
Is it gay marriage or __________________
Is it anti-abortion or __________________
Is it pro-abortion or __________________
Is it impotence or ____________________
If you’re against a union or for ______________
It’s not single-payer medicine it’s ___________
You’re not an environmentalist you’re a ______
I’m not a liberal I’m a _____________________
It’s not a regulation it’s a __________________
Others???

49. Episodic vs.
Thematic Framing

50. Episodic vs.
Thematic Framing

51. Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)

52. Re. Gay Marriage?
Objective: Put issue in new context (frame)

53. Backlash to
“security” frame
Framing doesn’t
always work as
planned …

54. 2013 AAAS Scientist Survey: Objectives
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
objectives
“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”

55. Finally: What does it mean to know
your “audience” (= “interlocutors”)?

56. Tactics, objectives, and goals
What do they want to hear?
What might they want to say?
What do they think/feel about you?
How are they thinking about issues?
But don’t forget …
What are YOU trying to achieve?
What is the ethical path
to achieving it?

57. Exercise ... Logic model/Theories of change
We will you do:
___________
It will lead to:
___________
It will lead to:
___________
It will lead to:
___________
The impact will be:
___________
The impact will be:
___________
What skills do we need: ___________________
What resources do we need: _______________
What’s the first step: ______________________
How does this fit our needs: ________________
How does this fit our values: _______________
How will you know if you succeed: __________
+

58. Final thoughts I …
There are no
silver bullets
Not everyone
is reachable
It takes time

59. Final thoughts II …
It might be okay to
have a friend
photograph your
wedding …
But sometimes
help is … helpful.
And there’s no
need to reinvent
the wheel …

60. To evaluate the talk: https://goo.gl/opna16