Structures of engagement: How institutional structures at U.S. land-grant universities impact science faculty public engagement

You are here: / Rose K

Structures of engagement: How institutional structures at U.S. land-grant universities impact science faculty public engagement

Author: Kathleen Rose – Dartmouth College, United States

Co-authors:

  • Luye Bao – University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
  • Dominique Brossard – University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
  • Ezra Markowitz – University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States

With growing calls for increased science communication efforts, much discussion has focused on the reasons behind why some scientists choose to participate while others do not and the factors that may influence these decisions. Research over the past few years has addressed many individual-level factors that encourage participation in science communication and engagement efforts, ranging from career status to personal motivations and perceived self-efficacy. Yet, these individual-level factors do not address the larger context in which scientists are often situated, the priorities, decisions, and infrastructure at the university level. Science communication researchers and practitioners have suggested that certain institutional structures, such as an unsupportive university culture or lack of tangible rewards (e.g., during the tenure process), may suppress communication efforts. Little empirical research, however, has systematically addressed these structural factors that may encourage or discourage involvement in public science engagement.

To ground recent discussions about potentially restructuring faculty expectations and reinvesting in support for service at public universities as a way to encourage greater science communication efforts, we explore structural factors that impact public science engagement at land-grant universities across the United States.

Using data from a 2018 census survey of science faculty members at 46 land-grant universities across the U.S. (N=8,235 eligible completes; RR2=14.1%), we use hierarchical linear modeling analysis to explore how institutional structures within these universities affect the science engagement activities of their science faculty members. Structural factors can include those related to the tenure review process (e.g., importance of engagement for tenure), university support (e.g., presence of offices of outreach and engagement; engagement awards), and the attention called to engagement and outreach activities by these universities (e.g., presence in university mission statements; press releases). We end with a discussion of how these institutional structures might impact the future of science communication.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Individual paper
Theme: Time

Comparison of graduate students and tenure-track faculty in levels of and attitudes toward public science communication engagement

Author: Kathleen Rose – Dartmouth College, United States

Co-authors:
Dominique Brossard – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Emily Howell – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Julia Nepper – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dietram Scheufele – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Michael Xenos – University of Wisconsin-Madison

Productive communication between scientists and the public is beneficial to both scientists and the public. Much research focuses on the impact of engagement on the public, and recent efforts have aimed to both understand and increase scientists’ participation in public communication. These efforts have largely focused on the activities of scientists in professional settings such as industry scientists and academic faculty. While these studies are informative, the field lacks information on science graduate students.

As a first step towards exploring science communication in the scientist-in-training population, we examined perceptions and engagement in science and engineering graduate students. We surveyed the graduate student population at a research-intensive U.S. institution, in early 2017 (N=1,036; completion rate=16.6%), and compared these results with those from a 2016 survey of tenure-track science faculty at UW-Madison (N=373; completion rate=30%). Participants were asked about their familiarity with various media, their engagement in public science communication (PSC), and attitudes towards PSC and the public. We found that graduate student respondents were more likely than faculty to view social media as a tool for engaging with the public and other scientists, and were also more likely to post or comment on science-related content. In contrast, faculty were more likely to engage in public outreach (non-academic scientific communication, excluding social media) than graduate students. Overall, this first look suggests there are some cohort changes in terms of how graduate students engage compared to tenure-track faculty, with graduate students more frequently using forms of online engagement.

Broadly, we find that graduate students’ perceptions of the value and usefulness of PSC are favorable. We discuss factors that may affect these perceptions, and findings, and possible strategies for increasing competency and engagement in science communication across researchers at multiple levels of their academic career.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Individual paper
Theme: Science
Area of interest: Building a theoretical basis for science communication

Public opinion of evolution – Different approaches to measuring evolution beliefs

Author: Kathleen Rose – Dartmouth College, United States

Co-authors:
Dominique Brossard – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dietram Scheufele – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Michael Xenos – University of Wisconsin-Madison

In 2010, the National Science Board’s (NSB) Science and Engineering Indicators excluded questions about evolution from both the report and their measure of scientific knowledge (NSB, 2016). While this decision generated “flak” from the broader community (Bhattacharjee, 2010), the NSB argued that the consistently low U.S. score on the human evolution questions indicated they were not a reliable measure of scientific knowledge. The NSB has also tested two versions of the question: “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals” with and without the preface “according to the theory of evolution.” As scores improved with the theory of evolution wording, the NSB concluded that the question reflected beliefs instead of knowledge where “many people know basic facts about evolution and science without believing in human evolution” (NSB, 2016, p. 48).

Beyond differences in knowledge scores, additional research has demonstrated that compared to Europe, U.S. views are strongly driven by religious beliefs, political ideology, and “genetic literacy” (Miller, Scott, & Okamoto, 2006). While there is a clear division in the U.S. between evolution knowledge and belief, empirical questions remain as to what factors drive the discrepancy between knowing the “basic facts,” yet believing otherwise.

Using data gathered from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults in early 2017 (N=1,600; completion rate=41.7%), we explore differences in evolution knowledge and beliefs. Modifying the NSB experiment, we asked about human evolution by itself and prefaced with “according to scientists.” Respondents were then categorized into one of four groups based on their own beliefs and their views of the science. Results indicate that the discrepancies between expert views and their own are driven by values (e.g., religion), news use, discussion networks, and knowledge, among other factors. We discuss the implications of these groupings for public opinion about controversial topics.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Idea in progress
Theme: Science
Area of interest: Building a theoretical basis for science communication

Contact

The Network for the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST Network) is an organisation that promotes discussion on the theory and practice of communicating science, and of public discourses about science and technology and their role in society.

Email: admin@pcst.network
Web: www.pcst.network

Incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Registered number AO5352.

Terms and conditions  ·  Privacy policy
Disclaimer  ·  Copyright  ·  Sitemap

Copyright © PCST

Connect

Join

PCST is the an active and influential international academic and professional organisation in the field of science communication.

➔ Become a member

Discuss

Our email discussion list is free for everyone to join and has an international audience of over 2000 subscribers.

➔ Join the discussion list

Partners

PCST Network has co-operation agreements with the following international organisations:

EUSEA
European Science Engagement Association

IECA
International Environmental Communication Association

RedPOP
Latin American and Caribbean Network for the Popularisation of Science and Technology