Two-way communication between scientists and the public: a view from science communication trainers in North America

References

• Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y.-Y., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience, 63(4), 284–287. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, B. D., Swenson, R., & Gilkerson, N. D. (2016). Discussion, dialogue, discourse| understanding dialogue and engagement through communication experts’ use of interactive writing to build relationships. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4095–4118.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95. doi: 10.1177/0963662506071287
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C. (2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 201–214. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu042
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220. doi: 10.1002/tea.21186
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. D., Yuan, S., & AbiGhannam, N. A. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. doi: 10.1177/1075547016645640
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. C. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H., & Nisbet, M. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. doi: 10.1177/0963662512459315
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239–263. doi: 10.1177/1075547010386972
   Google Scholar
• Bik, H. M., & Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
   Google Scholar
• Borchelt, R. E., & Nielsen, K. H. (2014). Public relations in science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology: Second edition (pp. 58–69). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Bray, B., France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2012). Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 23–41. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2011.611627
   Google Scholar
• Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 12(1), E6.
   Google Scholar
• Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: Literature review. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_grants/documents/web_document/wtp060036.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. doi: 10.1177/09636625030122004
   Google Scholar
• Casini, S., & Neresini, F. (2013). Behind closed doors. Scientists’ and science communicators’ discourses on science in society. A study across European research institutions. TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 3(2), 37–62.
   Google Scholar
• Cicerone, R. (2006). Celebrating and rethinking science communication. Focus, 6(3), 3.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. doi: 10.1177/1075547008316222
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A. (2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501. doi: 10.1177/1075547012460845
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A. (2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761–775. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12298
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Kahlor, L., AbiGhannam, N., Lazard, A., & Liang, M.-C. (2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9(10), 841–844. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2014.194
   Google Scholar
• Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299–314. doi: 10.1177/107769900908600203
   Google Scholar
• Edmondston, J., & Dawson, V. (2014). Perspectives of science communication training held by lecturers of biotechnology and science communication. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(2), 195–210. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.793433
   Google Scholar
• Edmondston, J., Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2010). Are students prepared to communicate? A case study of an Australian degree course in biotechnology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 1091–1108. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9234-3
   Google Scholar
• Fahy, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778–793. doi: 10.1177/1464884911412697
   Google Scholar
• France, B., Cridge, B., & Fogg-Rogers, L. (2015). Organisational culture and its role in developing a sustainable science communication platform. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1106025
   Google Scholar
• Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18(3), 265–282. doi: 10.1177/1075547097018003005
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. H. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2003). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. S. (1989). Toward a theory of the public relations behavior of organizations: Review of a program of research. Public Relations Research Annual, 1(1–4), 27–63. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0101-4_2
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations (Vol. 343). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, R. D. (2015). Why science? Why AAAS? Science, 347(6224), 807. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9126
   Google Scholar
• Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself?: Representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. doi: 10.1177/1075547013487513
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y. (2007). A revisit of symmetrical communication from an international perspective: Status, effect, and future research directions. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 235–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. (2008). Risk, science and public communication: Third-order thinking about scientific culture. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 111–130). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2016). Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(1), 68–88. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2014.995743
   Google Scholar
• Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
   Google Scholar
• Lee, N. M., & VanDyke, M. S. (2015). Set it and forget it: The one-way use of social media by government agencies communicating science. Science Communication, 37(4), 533–541. doi: 10.1177/1075547015588600
   Google Scholar
• Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315(5809), 161. doi: 10.1126/science.1138712
   Google Scholar
• Longnecker, N. (2016). An integrated model of science communication—more than providing evidence. Journal of Science Communication, 15(05), Y01.
   Google Scholar
• McKinnon, M., & Vos, J. (2015). Engagement as a threshold concept for science education and science communication. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(4), 297–318. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2014.986770
   Google Scholar
• Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2015). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203–223. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S., Fahy, D., & The ESConet Team. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116–126. doi: 10.1177/1075547009339048
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, S. E., & Schibeci, R. A. (2014). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 511–527. doi: 10.1177/0963662512455295
   Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30(2), 266–276. doi: 10.1177/1075547008324809
   Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., Petersen, I., Cheng, D., Claessens, M. … Shi, S. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance (pp. 71–92). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rainie, L., Funk, C., & Anderson, M. (2015). How scientists engage the public. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/2002/2015/how-scientists-engage-public/
   Google Scholar
• Smith, B., Baron, N., English, C., Galindo, H., Goldman, E., McLeod, K., … Neeley, E. (2013). COMPASS: Navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001552
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, A., Roberts, C., Crowley, K., & McEwen, L. (2015). Methods of knowledge exchange and learning focused on local authorities’ experiences of flood science communication. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(2), 114–138. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.855835
   Google Scholar
• Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74. doi: 10.1177/0963662504042690
   Google Scholar
• Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In D. Cheng, M. Clessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119–135). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Trench, B., & Miller, S. (2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722–731. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs090
   Google Scholar
• Van Eperen, L., & Marincola, F. M. (2011). How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9(1), 199–193. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-199
   Google Scholar
• Watermeyer, R. (2012). Measuring the impact values of public engagement in medical contexts. Science Communication, 34(6), 752–775. doi: 10.1177/1075547011432804
   Google Scholar
• Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998
   Google Scholar