Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices

References

• Agre, P., & Leshner, A. I. (2010). Bridging science and society. Science, 327(5968), 921–921. doi: 10.1126/science.1188231
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285–300. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
   Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1177/0963662510394457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazzaz, F., Ceballos, G., Davis, M., Dirzo, R., Ehrlich, P. R., Eisner, T., … Matson, P. A. (1998). Ecological science and the human predicament. Science, 282(5390), 879–879. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5390.879c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 48–63. doi: 10.1177/0963662510384461
   Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. D., Yuan, S., & Abi Ghannam, N. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. doi: 10.1177/1075547016645640
   Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braha, J. (2015). AAAS communicating science program: Reflections on evaluation. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
   Google Scholar
• Burchell, K., Sheppard, C., & Chambers, J. (2017). A ‘work in progress’?: UK researchers and participation in public engagement. Research for All, 1(1), 198–224. doi: 10.18546/RFA.01.1.16
   Google Scholar
• Cook, G., Pieri, E., & Robbins, P. T. (2004). ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 433–449. doi: 10.1177/0957926504043708
   Web of Science ®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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donner, S. D. (2014). Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 124(1-2), 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donner, S. D. (2017). Risk and responsibility in public engagement by climate scientists: Reconsidering advocacy during the trump Era. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 430–433. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1291101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501. doi: 10.1177/1075547012460845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PloS one, 11(2), e0148867. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ecklund, E. H., James, S. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2012). How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PloS one, 7(5), e36240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogg-Rogers, L., Lewis, F., & Edmonds, J. (2017). Paired peer learning through engineering education outreach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), 75–90. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2016.1202906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraknoi, A., Fienberg, R. T., Gurton, S., Schmitt, A. H., Schatz, D., & Prather, E. E. (2014). Training Young Astronomers in EPO: An Update on the AAS Astronomy Ambassadors Program. In Manning James G., Hemenway Mary Kay, Jensen Joseph B., & Gibbs Michael G. (Eds.), Ensuring Stem Literacy: A National Conference on STEM Education and Public Outreach (Vol. 483, pp. 415). San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
   Google Scholar
• Grand, A., Davies, G., Holliman, R., & Adams, A. (2015). Mapping public engagement with research in a UK university.  PloS One, 10(4), e0121874. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121874
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groffman, P. M., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M. C., Duarte, C. M., Jordan, R., Burgin, A., … Coloso, J. (2010). Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 284–291. doi: 10.1890/090160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, A. G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001
   Google Scholar
• Heimlich, J. E., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 215–237. doi: 10.1080/13504620802148881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401
   Google Scholar
• Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23(2), 135–163. doi: 10.1177/1075547001023002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohwater, T., & Storksdieck, M. (2017). Science communication at scientific institutions. In K. H. Jameison, D. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 179–186). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, V. Y. (2017). Citizen science as a means for increasing public engagement in science: Presumption or possibility? Science Communication, 39(2), 142–168. doi: 10.1177/1075547017696165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J. H., Lehr, J. L., Lewenstein, B. V., … Wiehe, B. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/PublicEngagementwithScience.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McClain, C. R. (2017). Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “nerd of trust”. PLoS Biology, 15(6), e2002020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McComas, K. A., & Besley, J. C. (2011). Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Analysis, 31(11), 1749–1761. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01676.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miah, A. (2017). Nanoethics, science communication, and a fourth model for public engagement. NanoEthics, 11(2), 139–152. doi: 10.1007/s11569-017-0302-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S., Fahy, D., & Team, E. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116–126. doi: 10.1177/1075547009339048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montano, P. A. (2013). Changed perceptions about science communication: A case study of STEM graduate students in portal to the public (Doctoral dissertation).
   Google Scholar
• Nadkarni, N., & Levey, D. (2017). Ecology on the runway: Engaging the public in unexpected places. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 98(2), 103–109. doi: 10.1002/bes2.1302
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016a). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016b). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012a). Discipline-Based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neresini, F., & Bucchi, M. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 64–79. doi: 10.1177/0963662510388363
   Web of Science ®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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pace, M. L., Hampton, S. E., Limburg, K. E., Bennett, E. M., Cook, E. M., Davis, A. E., … Likens, G. E. (2010). Communicating with the public: Opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 292–298. doi: 10.1890/090168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. doi: 10.1177/1075547007308009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson Evia, J., Peterman, K., Cloyd, E., & Besley, J. (2017). Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(1), 40–52. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2017.1377852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 69–78. doi: 10.1111/cura.12007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skrip, M. M. (2015). Crafting and evaluating broader impact activities: A theory-based guide for scientists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(5), 273–279. doi: 10.1890/140209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storksdieck, M., Stylinski, C., & Bailey, D. (2016). Typology for public engagement with science: A conceptual framework for public engagement involving scientists. Corvallis, OR. Retrieved from http://informalscience.org/typology-public-engagement-science-conceptual-framework
   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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 415–426. doi: 10.1177/0963662516629750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tisdal, C. (2011). Portal to the Public summative evaluation: Comparative case studies of implementation at five sites. St. Louis, MO: Tisdal Consulting.
   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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiehe, B., Kaiser, D., Durant, J., Levenson, T., & Linett, P. (2014). The evolving culture of science engagement. Retrieved from http://www.cultureofscienceengagement.net/2013convening/report/
   Google Scholar
• Woods-Townsend, K., Christodoulou, A., Rietdijk, W., Byrne, J., Griffiths, J. B., & Grace, M. M. (2016). Meet the scientist: The value of short interactions between scientists and students. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(1), 89–113. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1016134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, S., Oshita, T., AbiGhannam, N., Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Koh, H. E. (2017). Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 341–355. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar