This document summarizes interviews conducted with 24 science and risk communication trainers. The interviews explored how trainers approach setting communication goals and objectives in their training. The interviews found that trainers believe scientists want help achieving both personal career goals and societal goals of ensuring science informs decision-making. However, the training rarely addresses what intermediate objectives could help scientists achieve their overall goals. The document suggests trainers could better incorporate strategic goal-setting into communication training.

1. • Phone interviews (n = 24) were completed
during the fall of 2014.
• Snowball sampling and Internet searches used to
compile a list of people involved in science/risk
communication training in the U.S. and Canada.
• The interview protocol initially asked trainers what
types of goals they thought scientists had for their
communication efforts
• Also, the degree to which the training they
provided emphasized skills versus specific
goals or objectives.
• Also, their views about a subset of
potential communication objectives.
• All the interviews were transcribed.
• Qualitative data analysis by first author.
• Denotes coding categories focused on in the results.
• Current science/risk training focuses largely on
helping scientists become skilled at clear, engaging
communication (i.e., journalism type training).
• Limited focus on helping scientists set evidence-
based communication objectives that might help
them achieve their goals (i.e., strategy training)
• This sub-project was the initial phase of a
NSF-funded project that will involve surveying
up to 10,000K scientists about their views on
science/risk communication.
• Primary focus on behavior + objectives + goals
• Surveys with American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American
Chemical Society, and the American Society for
Microbiology now complete, additional
surveys planned.
• We used initial interviews to better understand
how science communication trainers think about
communication objectives and goals.
• Underlying the focus was a question about the
degree to which science communication training
focuses on
(a) building journalism-type skills
(e.g. clear writing/speaking); versus
(b) the strategic selection of specific
communication objectives (e.g., changes
in trust or how people frame issues) that
communication research suggests might help
achieve scientists’ long-term communication
goals (e.g., support for policy).
• The study focused on science/risk communication
training because such training is a central way that
communication research is made available to
scientists serving as communicators.
BACKGROUND
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Appendix
This poster reports the results of 24 qualitative
interviews conducted in fall 2014 with science/risk
communication trainers to better understand how
they address goal setting in their work. The results
suggest that trainers believe the scientists they
train want help achieving a range of personal and
societal goals. Personal goals were primarily
related to career while societal goals were
primarily related to ensuring that science is part of
decision-making related to health or environmental
risk (e.g., climate change, or vaccines). Interviews
also indicated that the training being offered rarely
explicitly addresses what intermediate objectives
might allow scientists’ to achieve their overall
goals. Suggestions for training practice were made.
ABSTRACT
Origin of Scientists’ Communication Goals (RQ1)
• The trainers interviewed almost all indicated that
they encouraged scientists to set their own goals.
Scientists’ Long-term Communications Goals (RQ2)
• PERSONAL goals appear to include issues related
to a scientist’s desire to realize PERSONAL
BENEFITS and pursue larger SOCIETAL BENEFITS
as part of her/his career.
• For SOCIETAL factors, the central goals appear to
be desire for government decision-makers to
make general or specific policy decisions that are
consistent with scientific evidence.
number of respondents also emphasized the
importance of recognizing the SPECIFIC VALUE OF
Table 1. Final list of coding categories for interviews
“I want them to be thinking about this question of are they
being critical or are they being advocate? Are they being
message-oriented?” (Interview 1).
“… [F]unding is extremely competitive ... [scientists know] to
get that funding, they need to be able to explain … what they
do and why it's important” (Interview 11).
“[I love to] give talks to general audiences because if I do a
good job … they love me to death (Interview 12, on his own
engagement)
“[If scientists] are going to see science not only survive … but
thrive, they are going to have to become articulate advocates for
why science is important …” (Interview 17).
[A] lot of people are unhappy with policy and the failure to use
what scientists think they know in setting policy and taking
action, when it comes to climate change, vaccination, and a
whole host of things like that (Interview 12).
Views about communication objectives (RQ3)
• As might be expected, there was unanimity that
scientists could, should, and would seek to
INCREASE KNOWLEDGE as the primary goal of
communication.
• Trainers generally appeared to recognize,
however, ‘deficit model’ evidence regard the week
correlation between knowledge and attitudes.
• The trainers interviewed had mixed views about
the degree to which the scientists they train
would to prioritize FOSTERING EXCITEMENT
• Trainers were mixed on the degree to which they
felt that the scientists they train would be
comfortable with making BUILDING TRUST.
• Few trainers said that trust building was an issue
they emphasize.
• Trainers were also mixed on the value of trained
scientists in FRAMING ISSUES to resonate with
audiences.
• Concern about being seen as trying to persuade
We don’t really talk about it at all because it’s implied [that] if
they’re signing up for a science communication class, we assume
they’re enthusiastic about communicating science (Interview 6).
Yes: “establishing yourself as a person who they can relate to”
No: “picking and choosing tidbits to present in a way that makes
it seems like you share their values” (Interview 8)
We try to make it clear that we're not advocating for … framing
because … they feel like they're being told they should spin
things and somehow immorally manipulate people into thinking
a certain way (Interview 8)
1
2
3
3
2
1
AppendixFigure.Logicmodelforpathfrom
tacticstogoalsforscience/riskcommunication
Thank you to Sharon
Dunwoody, Bruce Lewenstein,
and Meena Selvakumar
(advisory panel) for their
guidance on this work.
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.