References
- Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2009). A historical perspective on science and its “others”. Isis, 100(2), 359–368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/599547
- 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510384461
- Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
- Bodmer, W. F. (1985). The public understanding of science. Report of a Royal Society ad hoc group endorsed by the council of the Royal Society [Internet]. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf
- Braun, M., Starkbaum, J., & Dabrock, P. (2015). Safe and sound? Scientists’ understandings of public engagement in emerging biotechnologies. PLOS ONE, 10(12), e0145033–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145033
- Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 11–39). Routledge Taylor & Francis.
- Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogue. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). Routledge.
- Bucchi, M. (2015). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X14558766
- Cerrato, S., Daelli, V., Pertot, H., & Puccioni, O. (2018). The public-engaged scientists: Motivations, enablers and barriers. Research for All, 2(2), 313–322. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.2.09
- Chikoore, L., Probets, S., Fry, J., & Creaser, C. (2016). How are UK academics engaging the public with their research? A cross-disciplinary perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12088
- Crettaz von Roten, F. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658
- Crettaz Von Roten, F., & Goastellec, G. (2015). Understanding academics’ popular science publishing: Institution culture and management style effects. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 13(2), 15–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658
- Davies, S. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
- Department of Science and Technology (DST). (2019). White Paper on science, technology and innovation. Government Printers.
- Dudo, A. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845
- Dudo, A. (2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761–775. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12298
- Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLOS ONE, 11(12), e0148867. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
- Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513
- Illingworth, S., Redfern, J., Millington, S., & Gray, S. (2015). What’s in a name? Exploring the nomenclature of science communication in the UK. Version 2. F1000Research, 4(409) [Online]. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6858.2
- Jensen, P., Rouquier, J. B., Kreimer, P., & Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130
- Johnson, D. R., Ecklund, E. H., & Lincoln, A. E. (2014). Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Communication, 36(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013499142
- Joubert, C. M. (2018a). Country-specific factors that compel South African scientists to engage with public audiences. Journal of Science Communication, 17(04), C04. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17040304
- Joubert, C. M. (2018b). Factors influencing the public communication behaviour of publicly visible scientists in South Africa. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stellenbosch University. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/103268
- Joubert, M., & Guenther, L. (2017). In the footsteps of Einstein, Sagan and Barnard: Identifying South Africa’s most visible scientists. South African Journal of Science, 113(11/12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20170033
- Könneker, C., Niemann, P., & Böhmert, C. (2019). Young researchers and science communication: Results of an extensive survey. https://www.lindau-nobel.org/blog-young-researchers-and-science-communication/
- Kreimer, P., Levin, L., & Jensen, P. (2011). Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383924
- Leshner, A. (2015). Bridging the opinion gap. Science, 347(6221), 459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477
- Leshner, A. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299(5609), 977. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.977
- Llorente, C., Revuelta, G., Carrió, M., & Porta, M. (2019). Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities. PLoS ONE, 14(11), e0224262. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224262
- Marcinkowski, F., & Kohring, M. (2014). The changing rationale of science communication: A challenge to scientific autonomy. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3), C04. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030304
- Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid science fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506067660
- Mayor, F. (1999). Science for the 21st century: A new commitment. In A. M. Cetto, S. Schneegans, & H. Moore (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Science, Unesco (pp. 26–28). Banson.
- McCann, B. M., Cramer, C. B., & Taylor, L. G. (2015). Assessing the impact of education and outreach activities on research scientists. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(1), 65–78. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1061877.pdf
- Merino, N. S., & Navarro, D. H. T. (2019). Attitudes and perceptions of Conacyt researchers towards public communication of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518781466
- Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382–400. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022
- Mizumachi, E., Matsuda, K., & Kano, K. (2011). Scientists’ attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: A study using “science cafes”. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), E1–E11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22323/2.10040202
- NABI (National Alliance for Broader Impacts). (2018). The current state of broader impacts: advancing science and benefiting society [Online]. https://extension2.missouri.edu/media/wysiwyg/Extensiondata/Pro/ARIS/Docs/nabi-current-state-of-bi-011118.pdf
- NRF (National Research Foundation). (2020). Science engagement [Online]. https://www.nrf.ac.za/science-engagement
- Peters, H. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(S3), 14102–14109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110
- Rödder, S. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the “book of life”. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507081168
- Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In S. Rödder, M. Franzen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 155–178). Springer.
- Rose, K. M., Markowitz, E. M., & Brossard, D. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3), 1274–1276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
- Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
- Savage, L. (2013). A view from the foothills: Public engagement among early career researchers. Political Studies Review, 11(2), 190–199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12010
- Searle, S. D. (2013). Scientists’ engagement with the public. In J. K. Gilbert & S. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas: A reader in science communication (pp. 41–58). Routledge.
- Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
- Stylinski, C., Storksdieck, M., Canzoneri, N., Klein, E., & Johnson, A. (2018). Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 340–354. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188
- TNS-BMRB. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: A study on behalf of a Consortium of UK public research funders. Policy Studies Institute. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtp060033_0.pdf
- UKRI (UK Research and Innovation). (2019). Vision for public engagement [Online]. https://www.ukri.org/files/per/ukri-vision-for-public-engagement-pdf/
- Weingart, P., & Joubert, M. (2019). The conflation of motives of science communication - causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication, 18(03). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18030401
- Wellcome Trust. (2021). Research enrichment – public engagement. Wellcome Trust [Online]. https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/schemes/research-enrichment-public-engagement
- Wilkinson, C, Bultitude, K, & Dawson, E. (2011). Oh yes, robots! People like robots; the robot people should do something”: Perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics. Science Communication, 33(3), 367–397. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010389818
- Yuan, S., Besley, J. C., & Dudo, A. (2019). A comparison between scientists’ and communication scholars’ views about scientists’ public engagement activities. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518797002