John C. Besley

How scientists view the public, the media and the political process

We review past studies on how scientists view the public, the goals of communication, the performance and impacts of the media, and the role of the public in policy decision-making. We add to these past findings by analyzing two recent large-scale surveys of scientists in the UK and US. These analyses show that scientists believe the public is uninformed about science and therefore prone to errors in judgment and policy preferences. Scientists are critical of media coverage generally, yet they also tend to rate favorably their own experience dealing with journalists, believing that such interactions are important both for promoting science literacy and for career advancement. Scientists believe strongly that they should have a role in public debates and view policy-makers as the most important group with which to engage. Few scientists view their role as an enabler of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, and do not believe there are personal benefits for investing in these activities. Implications for future research are discussed, in particular the need to examine how ideology and selective information sources shape scientists’ views.

What Science Communication Scholars Think About Training Scientists to Communicate

The current study involved an attempted census of first and second authors from five key journals across the subfields of science, health, environment, and risk communication between 2003 and 2008. Of those responding (n = 320), 80% describe themselves as a communication expert. Of these experts (n = 255), 57% report conducting formal training for bench scientists and engineers, science regulators, medical personnel, or journalists. The main focus of training was in basic communication theories and models. There is broad agreement that the science community would benefit from additional science communication training and that deficit model thinking remains prevalent.

Public Engagement and the Impact of Fairness Perceptions on Decision Favorability and Acceptance

Drawing on the social-psychological theory about justice, the current study uses survey data collected during a public engagement process related to nuclear energy to test the relative impact of perceptions about the fairness of outcomes, decision procedures, and interpersonal treatment in predicting both perceived favorability of a decision and willingness to accept a decision. Media use, interpersonal discussion, competence, and risk perceptions (worry) are used as control variables alongside standard demographics in hierarchical ordinary least squares regression models. The study finds that believing one receives a fair outcome is associated with decision favorability, while all forms of fairness perceptions are associated with acceptance. The implication is that perceptions about both outcome and nonoutcome forms of fairness are important to consider when assessing public engagement.

Predicting scientists' participation in public life

This research provides secondary data analysis of two large-scale scientist surveys. These include a 2009 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members and a 2006 survey of university scientists by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society. Multivariate models are applied to better understand the motivations, beliefs, and conditions that promote scientists’ involvement in communication with the public and the news media. In terms of demographics, scientists who have reached mid-career status are more likely than their peers to engage in outreach, though even after controlling for career stage, chemists are less likely than other scientists to do so. In terms of perceptions and motivations, a deficit model view that a lack of public knowledge is harmful, a personal commitment to the public good, and feelings of personal efficacy and professional obligation are among the strongest predictors of seeing outreach as important and in participating in engagement activities.

Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say?

The current study explores interpersonal discussion following participation in a novel program of citizen engagement about nanotechnology. Participants answered closed- and open-ended questions about their discursive behavior in a postengagement survey. The study seeks to address whether organizers of citizen engagement can expect participants to extend the impacts of engagement beyond direct participants through interpersonal discussion. Respondents reported moderate levels of postengagement discussion and appeared to say positive things about both nanotechnology and the experts who contributed to the engagement program. Respondents also reported primarily talking about nanotechnology in terms of scientific progress while using a range of fairness and competence frames to discuss experts and the program.

Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science:

The use and utility of science in society is often influenced by the structure, legitimacy, and efficacy of the scientific research process. Public participation in scientific research (PPSR) is a growing field of practice aimed at enhancing both public knowledge and understanding of science (education outreach) and the efficacy and responsiveness of scientific research, practice, and policy (participatory engagement). However, PPSR objectives focused on “education outreach” and “participatory engagement” have each emerged from diverse theoretical traditions that maintain distinct indicators of success used for program development and evaluation. Although areas of intersection and overlap among these two traditions exist in theory and practice, a set of comprehensive standards has yet to coalesce that supports the key principles of both traditions in an assimilated fashion. To fill this void, a comprehensive indicators framework is proposed with the goal of promoting a more integrative and synergistic PPSR program development and assessment process.

Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making

Several recent studies have questioned whether nonoutcome forms of fairness matter in decision-making situations where individuals feel strongly engaged by the issue at hand. This survey-based study focuses on perceptions about a decision-making process related to a proposal to expand a nuclear power plant in the U.S. Southeast. It finds that anger moderates the impacts of outcome and procedural fairness on willingness to accept a decision process as satisfactory and legitimate. The more anger a person said he or she would feel if a decision were to contradict that persons point of view, the more perceived outcome and procedural fairness mattered. The study also finds that interpersonal fairness is also moderated by anger, but in the opposite direction. Interpersonal fairness had less of an impact on willingness to accept a decision for those who said they would feel angry if the decision did not go their preferred way.

Skepticism About Media Effects Concerning the Environment: Examining Lomborg's Hypotheses

Statistician Bjorn Lomborgs tacit hypotheses regarding the effect of mass media exposure (what he calls “the Litany”) on environmental beliefs are tested using General Social Survey data from 1993, 1994, and 2000. Two core hypotheses and a research question are drawn from Lomborgs The Skeptical Environmentalist for discussion. Lomborgs apparent belief in a strong relationship between stilted media coverage and heightened environmental concern is generally not consistently borne out by the data. Lomborgs failure to distinguish between types of media, particularly television and newspapers, is shown to be problematic.

Public Meetings About Suspected Cancer Clusters: The Impact of Voice, Interactional Justice, and Risk Perception on Attendees' Attitudes in Six Communities

Holding a public meeting is a frequent method of communicating with community residents during official investigations into possible cancer clusters; however, there has been little formal research into the effectiveness of this method of health communication. This article presents research examining the influence of public meetings held during ongoing cancer cluster investigations in six U.S. communities. Drawing on social psychological theories of organizational justice, it examines the degree to which three specific elements of justice, including having a voice in the process, receiving fair interactional treatment, and facing equal risk of loss (i.e., cancer), influenced five outcome variables: meeting satisfaction, community connectedness, willingness to accept meeting outcomes or recommendations, willingness to attend future public meetings, and concern about the potential cancer cluster. The analysis of data collected from meeting attendees who responded to the mailed survey (N = 165) confirms a strong role for justice concerns in public meeting evaluations. In particular, perceptions of voice and interactional treatment had consistently large effects on the outcome variables, suggesting that managing a fair public engagement process can contribute to positive civic outcomes even during periods of heightened community concern about area cancer rates.

The State of Public Opinion Research on Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology

This article provides a critical and global overview of current research into public opinion about science and technology (S&T). Although several sets of high-quality data exist, there remains a lack of international coordination and irregular release of new data in forms that can be widely used. The article highlights a range of key challenges that those involved in collecting and reporting public opinion data about S&T can address to provide society with a more comprehensive and more integrated picture of attitudes and understanding about S&T around the world.