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.
A presentation building on my work on the ACUMEN project (2011-2014). 'What is important for your academic work but not evaluated at all?' I asked my interviewees. Their answer lead me to identify a few ways through which work or aspects of work are being made invisible.
'Stepping into the unknown' - Assessment practices in a digital agePeter Alston
The document discusses implementing electronic assessment in higher education. It notes both benefits and challenges of e-assessment, as well as lessons learned from a case study at the University of Liverpool School of Life Sciences. Key points made include: 1) E-assessment can reduce staff time spent on marking while allowing for self-paced learning, but lacks visual cues and requires new policies; 2) Interoperability, staff engagement, technology issues, and existing policies presented challenges; 3) Communication, learning from others, and understanding e-assessment is not simply adding technology to traditional practices are important lessons.
The document summarizes findings from a pilot workshop and doctoral course assignment that used activity systems analysis to help students understand design as a practice and share their experiences through narrative case studies. Key findings from student reflections included: 1) Realizing through writing their cases that they see themselves as designers, 2) Being able to consciously articulate and explain their design decisions through writing, 3) Finding that activity systems analysis helped provide a framework to assess tensions in the design process. Students concluded that engaging in analysis surprised them by revealing aspects of their design work they did not previously recognize and by claiming their identity as designers.
Systemic Design Principles & Methods ISSS 2014Peter Jones
Research paper presentation at ISSS 2014: Design Research Methods for Systemic Design: Perspectives from Design Education and Practice
The recent development of systemic design as a research-based practice draws on long-held precedents in the system sciences toward representation of complex social and enterprise systems. A precedent article, published as Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems (Jones, 2014) established an axiomatic and epistemological basis for complementary principles shared between design reasoning and systems theory. The current paper aims to establish a basis for identifying shared methods (techne) and action practice (phronesis). Systemic design is distinguished from user-oriented or industrial design practices in terms of its direct relationship to systems theory and explicit adoption of social system design tenets. Systemic design is concerned with higher-order socially-organized systems that encompass multiple subsystems in a complex policy, organizational or product-service context. By integrating systems thinking and its methods, systemic design brings human-centered design to complex, multi-stakeholder service systems as those found in industrial networks, transportation, medicine and healthcare. It adapts from known design competencies - form and process reasoning, social and generative research methods, and sketching and visualization practices - to describe, map, propose and reconfigure complex services and systems.
The document discusses human motivation and incentives for contributing to Web 2.0 platforms. It covers theories of motivation like need theories, job characteristics approach, and reinforcement theory. It also discusses intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as well as designing incentive systems using game theory and mechanism design. A case study is presented on designing incentives for semantic annotation at a research organization through workshops, interviews, and a lab experiment comparing incentive systems.
How aesthetics / beauty and usability influence each other in web designMatthias Schreck
I've gone through a whole list of scientific papers to understand what science knows today about the influence aesthetics / beauty and usability have on each other. I then tried to turn those horrendously boring papers into something that resembles an entertaining format, cut it down to a 20 min presentation and presented it at IxDA Sydney in September 2014.
You might even learn something here - so please tread lightly ;-)
Kate McKegg and Nan Wehipeihana (2010). A practitioners introduction to Devel...Nan Wehipeihana
Kate McKegg and Nan Wehipeihana (2010). Developmental Evaluation: A practitioner's introduction. A pre-conference workshop presented at the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) Conference, September 2010, Wellington, New Zealand.
A presentation building on my work on the ACUMEN project (2011-2014). 'What is important for your academic work but not evaluated at all?' I asked my interviewees. Their answer lead me to identify a few ways through which work or aspects of work are being made invisible.
'Stepping into the unknown' - Assessment practices in a digital agePeter Alston
The document discusses implementing electronic assessment in higher education. It notes both benefits and challenges of e-assessment, as well as lessons learned from a case study at the University of Liverpool School of Life Sciences. Key points made include: 1) E-assessment can reduce staff time spent on marking while allowing for self-paced learning, but lacks visual cues and requires new policies; 2) Interoperability, staff engagement, technology issues, and existing policies presented challenges; 3) Communication, learning from others, and understanding e-assessment is not simply adding technology to traditional practices are important lessons.
The document summarizes findings from a pilot workshop and doctoral course assignment that used activity systems analysis to help students understand design as a practice and share their experiences through narrative case studies. Key findings from student reflections included: 1) Realizing through writing their cases that they see themselves as designers, 2) Being able to consciously articulate and explain their design decisions through writing, 3) Finding that activity systems analysis helped provide a framework to assess tensions in the design process. Students concluded that engaging in analysis surprised them by revealing aspects of their design work they did not previously recognize and by claiming their identity as designers.
Systemic Design Principles & Methods ISSS 2014Peter Jones
Research paper presentation at ISSS 2014: Design Research Methods for Systemic Design: Perspectives from Design Education and Practice
The recent development of systemic design as a research-based practice draws on long-held precedents in the system sciences toward representation of complex social and enterprise systems. A precedent article, published as Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems (Jones, 2014) established an axiomatic and epistemological basis for complementary principles shared between design reasoning and systems theory. The current paper aims to establish a basis for identifying shared methods (techne) and action practice (phronesis). Systemic design is distinguished from user-oriented or industrial design practices in terms of its direct relationship to systems theory and explicit adoption of social system design tenets. Systemic design is concerned with higher-order socially-organized systems that encompass multiple subsystems in a complex policy, organizational or product-service context. By integrating systems thinking and its methods, systemic design brings human-centered design to complex, multi-stakeholder service systems as those found in industrial networks, transportation, medicine and healthcare. It adapts from known design competencies - form and process reasoning, social and generative research methods, and sketching and visualization practices - to describe, map, propose and reconfigure complex services and systems.
The document discusses human motivation and incentives for contributing to Web 2.0 platforms. It covers theories of motivation like need theories, job characteristics approach, and reinforcement theory. It also discusses intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as well as designing incentive systems using game theory and mechanism design. A case study is presented on designing incentives for semantic annotation at a research organization through workshops, interviews, and a lab experiment comparing incentive systems.
How aesthetics / beauty and usability influence each other in web designMatthias Schreck
I've gone through a whole list of scientific papers to understand what science knows today about the influence aesthetics / beauty and usability have on each other. I then tried to turn those horrendously boring papers into something that resembles an entertaining format, cut it down to a 20 min presentation and presented it at IxDA Sydney in September 2014.
You might even learn something here - so please tread lightly ;-)
Kate McKegg and Nan Wehipeihana (2010). A practitioners introduction to Devel...Nan Wehipeihana
Kate McKegg and Nan Wehipeihana (2010). Developmental Evaluation: A practitioner's introduction. A pre-conference workshop presented at the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) Conference, September 2010, Wellington, New Zealand.
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.
The document discusses criticisms of the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) and proposes an approach to understanding HCI as problem-solving. It summarizes HCI research as addressing three types of problems - empirical, conceptual, and constructive. It evaluates whether the field is doing a good job based on analyses of award-winning papers, finding they focus more on empirical and constructive problems and that conceptual problems are underrepresented. It concludes the field could improve by more clearly defining what constitutes a significant research problem and good research.
An agenda for Systemic Design - An emerging research and educational track in systems sciences and design.
Peter Jones talk at ISSS 2014
Movements in Design & Systems Thinking
Education Movements
RSD3 Symposium
Systemic Design Research
Relationship to Systems Community
The role of data in the provision of feedback at scaleAbelardo Pardo
Technology mediation allows to capture comprehensive data sets about interactions occurring in learning experiences. Although these data sets have the potential of increasing the insight on how learning occurs, their use strongly depends on two aspects: the data has to be properly situated in the learning design, and the insights derived need to be translated into actions. In this talk we will explore how to establish this connection for the case of the provision of feedback. We will approach the problem from the point of view of intelligence amplification, that is, how data can support instructors to provide better support to learners through feedback. The talk will discuss some preliminary results from the Ontasklearning.org project.
This document summarizes various creative thinking techniques that can be used by students, including assumption busting, brainstorming, negative brainstorming, concept mapping, role-playing, storyboarding, random input, decision trees, questioning activities, slip writing, and laddering. These techniques were compiled by a graduate student and are intended to help stimulate creative thinking and problem solving among students. The summary provides a brief description and benefits of each technique.
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.
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.
Tina Phillips (Cornell Lab of Ornithology) - the DEVISE projectCitizenCyberlab
Tina Phillips (Cornell Lab of Ornithology) presenting the DEVISE project, and learning in citizen science research at the Citizen Cyberlab Summit, 17-18 September 2015, University of Geneva (UNIGE).
AEJMC 2014 - How scientists see engagement goalsJohn C. Besley
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.
This document provides guidance on analyzing and interpreting data from programs. It discusses the importance of having an analysis plan early on to ensure the data collected will answer evaluation questions. Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques are covered, including descriptive statistics, coding themes from qualitative data, and discussing limitations. The document emphasizes starting with a plan, cleaning and organizing data, analyzing both numbers and narratives, interpreting results, and reflecting on what was learned as well as limitations.
Designing a student and staff well-being feedback loop to inform university policy and governance
https://rsdsymposium.org/mywellnesscheck-designing-a-student-and-staff-well-being-feedback-loop-to-inform-university-policy-and-governance/
AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about EngagmentJohn C. Besley
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).
UXPA Boston 2015 | Discussion Guides PresentationMotivate Design
Discussion guides are universal research artifacts and often informed by a diverse range of stakeholders (from researchers to clients). With that many cooks in the kitchen, things are bound to get messy. This presentation introduces a reflection tool that allows researcher to define their rationale for what stays and goes in a discussion guide and to help shape the appropriate research methodology to get you where you need to go.
Motivate Design has effectively used this tool to align stakeholders on the most meaningful discussion points for research; what was in scope and what needed to be considered for future research. This tool will empower you to guide research initiatives toward the right direction.
UXPA Boston 2015
Presentation for the American Sociological Association's Department Affiliates Webinar Series. Discussion of using quantitative data in courses throughout the undergraduate curriculum, including why it's a good practice, how it can be done, and where one can find resources that make it easier.
Ces 2013 towards a cdn definition of evaluationCesToronto
The document outlines the process undertaken by a panel to develop a Canadian definition of evaluation. It describes conducting a literature review, using social media to gather perspectives, and attempting a survey, each of which provided insights but also challenges. The panel encountered unclear and varied definitions, difficulty accessing intended users, and unanticipated issues with surveys. They invite audience input on next steps. The goal is an inclusive definition that represents diverse views while building consensus around Canadian evaluation.
Presentation to 2016 Evidence Based School Counseling Conference, University ...Toby Cunningham
This document discusses revolutionary career guidance using cognitive aptitude assessments. It summarizes research showing that career success comes from both satisfaction and performance, which are predicted by interests, aptitudes, and the interplay between them. While interest inventories are commonly used in career counseling, research demonstrates that cognitive aptitudes more strongly predict job performance. The document introduces YouScience, a digital assessment of cognitive aptitudes based on the Ball Aptitude Battery that was developed in partnership with psychometric experts. YouScience integrates aptitude results with current job market data to provide personalized career guidance and recommendations.
A session on "Semi structured interviews for education research" faciltiated by Dr Ian Willis and Dr Debbie Prescott
as part of the CPD series on educational research
Academic Development, Centre for Lifelong Learning
University of Liverpool
5th November 2015
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.
The document discusses criticisms of the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) and proposes an approach to understanding HCI as problem-solving. It summarizes HCI research as addressing three types of problems - empirical, conceptual, and constructive. It evaluates whether the field is doing a good job based on analyses of award-winning papers, finding they focus more on empirical and constructive problems and that conceptual problems are underrepresented. It concludes the field could improve by more clearly defining what constitutes a significant research problem and good research.
An agenda for Systemic Design - An emerging research and educational track in systems sciences and design.
Peter Jones talk at ISSS 2014
Movements in Design & Systems Thinking
Education Movements
RSD3 Symposium
Systemic Design Research
Relationship to Systems Community
The role of data in the provision of feedback at scaleAbelardo Pardo
Technology mediation allows to capture comprehensive data sets about interactions occurring in learning experiences. Although these data sets have the potential of increasing the insight on how learning occurs, their use strongly depends on two aspects: the data has to be properly situated in the learning design, and the insights derived need to be translated into actions. In this talk we will explore how to establish this connection for the case of the provision of feedback. We will approach the problem from the point of view of intelligence amplification, that is, how data can support instructors to provide better support to learners through feedback. The talk will discuss some preliminary results from the Ontasklearning.org project.
This document summarizes various creative thinking techniques that can be used by students, including assumption busting, brainstorming, negative brainstorming, concept mapping, role-playing, storyboarding, random input, decision trees, questioning activities, slip writing, and laddering. These techniques were compiled by a graduate student and are intended to help stimulate creative thinking and problem solving among students. The summary provides a brief description and benefits of each technique.
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.
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.
Tina Phillips (Cornell Lab of Ornithology) - the DEVISE projectCitizenCyberlab
Tina Phillips (Cornell Lab of Ornithology) presenting the DEVISE project, and learning in citizen science research at the Citizen Cyberlab Summit, 17-18 September 2015, University of Geneva (UNIGE).
AEJMC 2014 - How scientists see engagement goalsJohn C. Besley
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.
This document provides guidance on analyzing and interpreting data from programs. It discusses the importance of having an analysis plan early on to ensure the data collected will answer evaluation questions. Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques are covered, including descriptive statistics, coding themes from qualitative data, and discussing limitations. The document emphasizes starting with a plan, cleaning and organizing data, analyzing both numbers and narratives, interpreting results, and reflecting on what was learned as well as limitations.
Designing a student and staff well-being feedback loop to inform university policy and governance
https://rsdsymposium.org/mywellnesscheck-designing-a-student-and-staff-well-being-feedback-loop-to-inform-university-policy-and-governance/
AAAS Presentation on Scientists' Views about EngagmentJohn C. Besley
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).
UXPA Boston 2015 | Discussion Guides PresentationMotivate Design
Discussion guides are universal research artifacts and often informed by a diverse range of stakeholders (from researchers to clients). With that many cooks in the kitchen, things are bound to get messy. This presentation introduces a reflection tool that allows researcher to define their rationale for what stays and goes in a discussion guide and to help shape the appropriate research methodology to get you where you need to go.
Motivate Design has effectively used this tool to align stakeholders on the most meaningful discussion points for research; what was in scope and what needed to be considered for future research. This tool will empower you to guide research initiatives toward the right direction.
UXPA Boston 2015
Presentation for the American Sociological Association's Department Affiliates Webinar Series. Discussion of using quantitative data in courses throughout the undergraduate curriculum, including why it's a good practice, how it can be done, and where one can find resources that make it easier.
Ces 2013 towards a cdn definition of evaluationCesToronto
The document outlines the process undertaken by a panel to develop a Canadian definition of evaluation. It describes conducting a literature review, using social media to gather perspectives, and attempting a survey, each of which provided insights but also challenges. The panel encountered unclear and varied definitions, difficulty accessing intended users, and unanticipated issues with surveys. They invite audience input on next steps. The goal is an inclusive definition that represents diverse views while building consensus around Canadian evaluation.
Presentation to 2016 Evidence Based School Counseling Conference, University ...Toby Cunningham
This document discusses revolutionary career guidance using cognitive aptitude assessments. It summarizes research showing that career success comes from both satisfaction and performance, which are predicted by interests, aptitudes, and the interplay between them. While interest inventories are commonly used in career counseling, research demonstrates that cognitive aptitudes more strongly predict job performance. The document introduces YouScience, a digital assessment of cognitive aptitudes based on the Ball Aptitude Battery that was developed in partnership with psychometric experts. YouScience integrates aptitude results with current job market data to provide personalized career guidance and recommendations.
A session on "Semi structured interviews for education research" faciltiated by Dr Ian Willis and Dr Debbie Prescott
as part of the CPD series on educational research
Academic Development, Centre for Lifelong Learning
University of Liverpool
5th November 2015
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.
This document summarizes a study on job satisfaction among employees at a recruitment company. It describes the researchers who conducted the study, outlines the literature review process, and explains the research design which included a survey methodology using questionnaires. The survey was conducted on a sample of 23 employees selected from a population of 45 using convenient random sampling. The questionnaires examined the influence of demographic variables like age, designation, and experience on constructs related to job satisfaction. Data analysis found some demographic variables had suggestive or moderate influence on certain constructs related to areas like rewards, communication, career development, and benefits. The conclusion provides recommendations to improve leadership, career growth opportunities, and employee benefits to enhance job satisfaction.
Presentation Slides from ISSOTL 2015.
Bronnimann, J., West, D., Heath, D. & Huijser, H. (2015) Leveraging learning analytics for future pedagogies and scholarship. Paper presented at Leading learning and the scholarship of change: 12th annual ISSOTL conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Similar to Broader Impacts 2014 Presentation (Draft) (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.
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.
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.
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
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
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.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
2. What I want to highlight today…
Assumptions:
• Our society needs strong support for science to flourish
• Scientists can help build through effective communication with fellow citizens
Key questions:
• What shapes scientists willingness to communicate
• What shapes scientists willingness to communicate effectively/strategically?
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.”
3. Lots of great qualitative work …
Summary of key findings …
• Scientists don’t think much of the public
• Scientists don’t think much of the media
• Scientists want to be helpful
• Scientists know little of “public engagement” idea
• Primary solution is BELIEVED TO BE education
4. A key problem is …
• Evidence suggests limited
relationship between science
knowledge and attitudes
(Allum, Strugis, & Tabourazi, 2008)
• Limited evidence that
scientific knowledge is
going to change in near future
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
5. Past Research on What gets scientists to “engage”
Attitudes/Norms/Efficacy
• Past Behavior (Poliakoff and Web, 2007)
• Positive engagement attitude (Poliakoff and Web, 2007, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013 Dudo, 2013)
• Perceived skills (efficacy) (Poliakoff and Web, 2007, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013, Dudo, 2013)
• Belief that others are engaging (norms) (Poliakoff and Web, 2007)
• Perceived moral obligation(Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Dudo, 2013, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)
• Perceived personal benefits (Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)
Demographics
• Field (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013 , Marcinowski et al, 2014)
• Seniority/Rank/Age (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013, Dudo 2013)
• Gender (Bentley & Kvik, 2011)
Other factors
• Resources (money/time) (Bentley & Kvik, 2011, Marcinowski et al, 2014, Besley, Oh, & Nisbet, 2013)
• Training (Dudo, 2013)
Most recent work: Surveys with AAAS members …
• Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
• Fall 2013 (n = 390): Views about online engagement goals
6. Most recent work
In the last two years, about how many total days did you devote
to engagement in the following forms (i.e., two half days = 1 day)?
32.7
45.8
53.7
54.1
64.6
65.7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Face-to-Face engagement - Adults
Face-to-Face engagement - Youth
Media interviews - Print/Online
Online engagement - Adults
Media interviews - Audio/Video
Online engagement - Youth.
0 Days
About 1 day
About 2 days
About 3 days
About 4-10 days
More than 10 days
M = 2.76
M = 2.31
M = 1.82
M = 2.34
M = 1.86
M = 1.67
Combined M (alpha = .83) = 2.12
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Many scientists are engaging: F2F is the most
popular; Online engagement is least popular.
7. Most recent work
How willing would you be to take part in the following types of engagement or outreach?
All questions had a range of 1-5 and were asked using a scale
anchored by “not at all willing” and “very willing”
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Online engagement - Adults
Online engagement - Youth.
Online Willingness (alpha = .87)
Face-to-Face engagement - Adults
Face-to-Face engagement - Youth
F2F Willingness (alpha = .83)
Media interviews - Audio/Video
Media interviews - Print/Online
Media Willingness (alpha = .94)
Overall, respondents said they be
willing to give about 7.6 days, but
that’s affected by outliers (100+ days)
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
8. Most recent work
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Please select the point between the two options that
captures your views about ONLINE public engagement
All questions had a range of 1-6 and
were asked using a bipolar scale
4.2
4.6
4.4
2.4
2.9
2.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Scientists not well regarded/Well ...
Colleagues would not approve/Would …
Subjective Norms Average (alpha = .76)
Most scientists do not take part/Do take part …
My colleages do not take part/Do take part …
Descriptive Norms Average (alpha = .75)
Subjective Norms
Most scientists think their colleagues
like online engagement, but don’t
do it very much
9. Most recent work
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Please select the point between the two options that
captures your views about ONLINE public engagement
3.5
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.8
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Do not have time/Have time
Do not think can make difference/Can make …
Think engagement waste of time/Do not …
External Efficacy (alpha = .75)
Do not have skills/Have skills
Expertise too specialized/Not too …
Expertise not interesting/Is …
Internal efficacy (alpha = .75)
All questions had a range of 1-6 and were asked using a bipolar scale
ExternalEfficacyInternalEfficacy
Most scientists feel they have little
time for engagement but think it can
be effective and that they have skills
10. Online
Engagement
Willingness
Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates
Things that predict
engagement:
• Being younger
• Efficacy
• Desire to
contribute to
debate
Things that don’t:
• (Most) demos.
• Academic field*
• Research type*
• University type*
• Most objectives*
• Most reasons*
*Dropped from model
-0.35
-0.06
0.04
-0.02
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
-0.02
0.04
0.24
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.19
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Age
Female
White
Liberal (5 point scale)
Retired
Fairness: Distributive
Fairness: Procedural
Problem: Low Knowledge
Norms: Subjective
Norms: Descriptive
Efficacy: Time
Efficacy: Internal
Efficacy: External
Identity: Pride
Goal: Contribute to Debate
Adjusted r2: .26
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
11. Online
Engagement
Willingness
Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates
Things that matter:
• Being younger
• Efficacy
• Desire to
contribute to
debate
Things that don’t
seem to matter:
• (Most) demos.
• Academic field*
• Research type*
• University type*
• Most objectives*
• Most reasons*
*Dropped from model
-0.35
-0.06
0.04
-0.02
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
-0.02
0.04
0.24
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.19
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Age
Female
White
Liberal (5 point scale)
Retired
Fairness: Distributive
Fairness: Procedural
Problem: Low Knowledge
Norms: Subjective
Norms: Descriptive
Efficacy: Time
Efficacy: Internal
Efficacy: External
Identity: Pride
Goal: Contribute to Debate
Adjusted r2: .26
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
Conclusions from 2012 data:
• If you want scientists to engagement, it may help to…
• Decrease perceived time commitment
• Increase perceived skill
• Increase perceived impact
• Increase perceived broader impacts
• Implications for …
• How we promote engagement opportunities and training
12. Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Strategic
Comm.
Priorities
13. All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Best predictors are … (Adj. R2 = .31-37)
• Attitudes
• If you think a goal is ethical
• Norms
• If you think your colleagues prioritize a goal
• Efficacy
• If you think a goal works (external efficacy)
• If you think you can do a goal (internal efficacy)
Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement
14. All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement
Conclusions from 2013 data:
• If you want scientists to engage more strategically …
• Increase perceived ethicality of strategic goals
• Increase perceived impact of strategic goals
• Increase perceived skills related to strategic goals
• Implications for …
• What we emphasize in engagement training
(Do we focus on skills at expense of goal selection?)
16. Past Online
Engagement
Standardized and reduced OLS regression Beta estimates
Things that matter:
• Funding
• Norms
• Efficacy
Things that don’t
seem to matter:
• Views of the public
• Demographics
• Academic field*
• Research type*
• University type*
• Communication
objectives*
• Reasons for
becoming a
scientist*
*Dropped from model
-0.10
0.06
-0.05
-0.05
0.02
0.03
-0.07
0.15
-0.02
0.06
-0.02
0.00
-0.13
0.16
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.04
-0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Age
Female
White
Liberal (5 point scale)
Retired
Funding: DOD
Funding: NIH
Funding: NSF
Funding: Other Federal
Fairness: Distributive
Fairness: Procedural
Problem: Low Knowledge
Norms: Subjective
Norms: Descriptive
Efficacy: Time
Efficacy: Internal
Efficacy: External
Identity: Pride
Adjusted r2: .18
Fall 2012 (n = 431): Views about online engagement
17. All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Things that predict ‘defending science’ as priority (Adj. R2 = .36)
• Attitudes
• Views about the public (procedural/interpersonal fairness)
• If you think defending science is ethical
• Norms
• If you think your colleagues engage (descriptive norms)
• If you think your colleagues prioritize defending science
• Efficacy
• If you think defending science works (external efficacy)
• If you think you can defend science (internal efficacy)
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagementMost recent work: Goals
18. Most recent work
All questions had a range of 1-7 where 1 was “lowest priority” and 7 “was “highest priority”
How much should each of the following be a priority for online public engagement …
6.14
5.79
5.96
6.04
5.72
5.88
5.59
4.76
5.22
5.00
4.59
5.34
4.96
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Correcting scientific misinformation
Defending science …
Defensive goals average (r = .63)
Ensuring that people are informed …
Ensuring that scientists' ... are part of ... debate
Knowledge goals average (r = .41)
Getting people excited about science
Hearing what others think ..
Demonstrating … openness and transparency
Trust goals average (r = .54)
Framing research … *to+ resonate …
Describing … in ways that make them relevant …
Messaging goal average (r = .54)
Things that predict ‘informing’ as priority (Adj. R2 = .36)
• Attitudes
• Views about the public (procedural/interpersonal fairness)
• Enjoying engagement
• If you think defending science is ethical
• Norms
• If you think your colleagues engage and value engagement
(descriptive and subjective norms)
• Demographics
• Being female (-), Being in chemistry (-)
• News consumption
Most recent work: Goals
Fall 2013 (n = 390):
Views about online engagement
Editor's Notes
When it comes to willingness instead of past behavior, we can see that internal efficacy, time, pride and a desire to contribute to the debate are the variables that matter.Younger respondents were also relatively more likely to say they were willing to engage And, once again, we see that scientists’ views about the public had little relationship with willingness.
When it comes to willingness instead of past behavior, we can see that internal efficacy, time, pride and a desire to contribute to the debate are the variables that matter.Younger respondents were also relatively more likely to say they were willing to engage And, once again, we see that scientists’ views about the public had little relationship with willingness.
First, let’s look at past engagement. What you should see here is that the things most associated with engagement are scientists perceptions of what their colleagues think and efficacy.Remember internal efficacy is the belief that the scientists can do a good job while external efficacy is the belief that engagement can make a difference.It’s noteworthy that scientists’ views about the public appears to have little relationship with engagement.This is quite surprising to me, at least, because I really thought that scientists’ views about the public would affect engagement. The negative relationship with subjective norms is also noteworthy.It’s quite possible that the causal direction here is that those who are engaging are finding that their colleagues are less supportive than they might hope.Those who support the NSF’s efforts to ensure broader impacts may also be happy to note that NSF funding is associated with more engagement.There’s a whole list of thing on the left here that do not appear to be associated with past engagement, including most demographics.Some of these were dropped from the model because they were doing so little and it makes the presentation more manageable.Finally, if you replace the “online engagement” dependent variable with a general variable that includes all forms of engagement, you get very similar results.