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)

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

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

4. 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
*All work done collaboratively with Anthony Dudo, U. Texas

5. 5
Our new survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific Societies
Type of society N Rate n* Avg. Age Male White
General 1,257 8% 1,064 62 69% 90%
Microbiology* 1,111 14% 634** 53 54% 60%
Geophysical 1,013 10% 877** 50 65% 89%
Geological 2,304 10% 666 50 67% 92%
Chemical# 1,257 5% 374** 51 68% 86%
Ecological 732 11% 339 53 60% 93%
* Respondents who are university affiliated and not a student and all societies except the
ecological society received 4 contacts (they received 3 contacts), **Sample for some reported
questions smaller because of sample splitting by engagement mode, # Survey still in progress
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.

6. 6
Past Engagement previous 12 months (never) …
Type of society F2F News Online Policy
General 34% 45% 59% 58%
Microbiology 41% 54% 51% 70%
Geophysical 26% 38% 47% 59%
Geological 21% 41% 51% 62%
Chemical (TBD) 40% 62% 60% 77%
Ecological (TBD) 26% 38% 47% 59%
0.00-
9.99
10.00-
19.99
20.00-
29.99
30.00-
39.99
40.00-
49.99
50.00-
59.99
60.00-
69.99
70.00-
79.99
80.00-
89.99
90.00-
100.00
%
Many U.S. scientists
engage, especially
face-to-face

7. 7
Willingness to engage …
Type of society F2F Policy News Online
General 5.63 5.25 5.14 3.98
Microbiology 5.81 5.32 5.05 4.57
Geophysical 5.97 5.43 5.46 4.62
Geological 5.97 5.17 5.23 4.25
Chemical 5.38 4.64 4.58 4.20
Ecological 6.02 5.63 5.54 4.55
1.00-
1.49
1.50-
1.99
2.00-
2.49
2.50-
2.99
3.00-
3.49
3.50-
3.99
4.00-
4.49
4.50-
4.99
5.00-
5.49
5.50-
5.99
6.00-
6.49
6.50-
7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08Scientists want to engage,
especially face-to-face and
with policy makers
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

8. 8
Societal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of society Use
Evidence
Culture
Values
Better
Personal
Research
Funding
STEM
Careers
Diversify
STEM
General 6.34 6.15 5.59 5.52 5.29 5.05
Microbiology 6.38 6.31 5.80 5.78 5.46 5.22
Geophysical 6.40 6.06 5.50 5.00 5.03 5.08
Geological 6.35 6.09 5.66 5.15 5.41 5.00
Chemical (TBD) 6.11 6.18 5.62 5.51 5.28 5.03
Ecological (TBD) 6.54 6.04 5.76 5.09 5.07 5.26• 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

9. 9
Societal goals (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of society Use
Evidence
Value
Science
Better
Personal
Research
Funding
STEM
Careers
Diversify
STEM
General 6.34 6.15 5.59 5.52 5.29 5.05
Microbiology 6.38 6.31 5.80 5.78 5.46 5.22
Geophysical 6.40 6.06 5.50 5.00 5.03 5.08
Geological 6.35 6.09 5.66 5.15 5.41 5.00
Chemical 6.11 6.18 5.62 5.51 5.28 5.03
Ecological 6.54 6.04 5.76 5.09 5.07 5.26
1.00-
1.49
1.50-
1.99
2.00-
2.49
2.50-
2.99
3.00-
3.49
3.50-
3.99
4.00-
4.49
4.50-
4.99
5.00-
5.49
5.50-
5.99
6.00-
6.49
6.50-
7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08Scientists most want others
to draw on evidence and
value science culture
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
Very similar results for
other modalities (i.e. online,
media), when available

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

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

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

13. In strategic communication:
Effective = Achieving Your Goals

14. What do scientists want to ULTIMATELY
achieve through public engagement?

15. Most would say:
• 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.

16. Very few people say:
• 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)

17. 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 …

18. 1
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Very similar results for mediated, and online engagement
Type of
society
Inform/
Educate
Interest
/Excite
Defend
Science
Show
caring
Show
openness
Frame
Issue
Show
Values
Hear
Others
Show
Expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86
Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97
Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69
Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91
Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
• 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 well-being
• Demonstrating the scientific community's
openness and transparency
• Framing research implications so members of the
public think about a topic in a way that resonates
with their values
• Showing that scientists share community values
• Hearing what others think about scientific issues
• Showing the scientific community's expertise

19. 1
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of
society
Inform/
Educate
Interest
/Excite
Defend
science
Show
caring
Show
openness
Frame
issue
Show
values
Hear
others
Show
expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86
Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97
Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69
Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91
Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
1.00-
1.49
1.50-
1.99
2.00-
2.49
2.50-
2.99
3.00-
3.49
3.50-
3.99
4.00-
4.49
4.50-
4.99
5.00-
5.49
5.50-
5.99
6.00-
6.49
6.50-
7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
BUT scientists love the
‘literacy’ objective …

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

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

22. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness
Knowledge has
only small impact
on attitudes

23. Objective: Increase science literacy/awareness

24. Objective: Increase
science literacy …
Knowledge has
only limited impact
on attitudes

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

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

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

28. A few thoughts about ethics

29. Objective:
Build positive views
about science/scientists
Those involved in
science have
a generally
positive image?
2013 Harris poll on views
about professions

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

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

32. 3
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of
society
Inform/
Educate
Interest
/Excite
Defend
science
Show
caring
Show
openness
Frame
issue
Show
values
Hear
others
Show
expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86
Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97
Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69
Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91
Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
1.00-
1.49
1.50-
1.99
2.00-
2.49
2.50-
2.99
3.00-
3.49
3.50-
3.99
4.00-
4.49
4.50-
4.99
5.00-
5.49
5.50-
5.99
6.00-
6.49
6.50-
7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
BUT scientists love the
‘literacy’ objective …

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

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

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

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

37. And these too…
(Research in progress)

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

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

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

41. “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.

42. “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.

43. Episodic vs.
Thematic Framing

44. Episodic vs.
Thematic Framing

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

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

47. 4
Objective Prioritization (for Face-to-Face engagement) …
Type of
society
Inform/
Educate
Interest
/Excite
Defend
science
Show
caring
Show
openness
Frame
issue
Show
values
Hear
others
Show
expert
General 6.21 5.99 5.77 5.73 5.50 5.30 5.33 5.16 4.86
Microbiology 6.27 6.01 6.03 5.78 5.47 5.38 5.37 5.23 4.97
Geophysical 6.20 5.86 5.58 5.45 5.36 5.22 4.99 4.88 4.69
Geological 6.19 5.93 5.91 5.57 5.40 5.15 5.15 4.88 4.91
Chemical 6.15 5.70 5.85 5.64 5.51 5.14 5.30 5.00 4.90
Ecological 6.03 5.97 5.44 5.33 5.07 4.98 5.33 4.96 4.31
1.00-
1.49
1.50-
1.99
2.00-
2.49
2.50-
2.99
3.00-
3.49
3.50-
3.99
4.00-
4.49
4.50-
4.99
5.00-
5.49
5.50-
5.99
6.00-
6.49
6.50-
7.00
Typical SE is between .05 and .08
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
BUT scientists love the
‘literacy’ objective …

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

49. 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?

50. 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: __________
+

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

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