Teaching scientists to communicate: developing science communication training based on scientists’ knowledge and self-reflectiveness

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman, K., Yelton, B., Hart, Z., Carson, M., Schandera, L., Kelsey, R. H., Porter, D. E., & Friedman, D. E. (2020). “You gotta choose your words carefully”: findings from interviews with environmental health scientists about their research translation perceptions and training needs. Journal of Health Communication, 25(5), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1785060
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, L., Brouwer, S., Mooren, C., & Munaretto, S. (2020). Guiding principles for effective communication during a public health crisis. KWR Water Research Institute. http://api.kwrwater.nl//uploads/2020/07/KWR-2020.074-Guiding-Principles-for-Effective-Communication-during-a-Public-Health-Crisis-(OPENBAAR).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Aurbach, E. L., Prater, K. E., Cloyd, E. T., & Lindenfeld, L. (2019). Foundational skills for science communication: A preliminary framework. University of Michigan, https://doi.org/10.3998/2027.42/150489
   Google Scholar
• Baker, C. N., Parrella, J. A., Norris, S. L., Leggette, H. R., & Walther, D. (2021). Learning to improvise, not criticize: Using improvisation techniques to enhance students’ ability to engage in civil discourse about science. Communication Teacher, https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2021.1988668
   Google Scholar
• Bankston, A., & McDowell, G. S. (2018). Changing the culture of science communication training for junior scientists. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1413
   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: Communication and Engagement, 7(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, P., Lewenstein, B. V., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, N., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Besley, J. (2020). Scientists, trainers, and the strategic communication of science. In T. P. Newman (Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 9–31). Routledge.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Ghannam, N. A. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H., & Nisbet, M. C. (2013). Predicting scientist’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., O’Hara, K., & Dudo, A. (2019). Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PloS One, 14(10), e0224039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224039
   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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Scholl, R. (2014). Expert interviews with science communicators: How perceptions of audience values influence science communication values and practices. F1000Research, 3, 1–20. https://f1000researchdata.s3.amazonaws.com
   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–E10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852879/
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stockmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, C., Lee, H. Y., Anderson, C., Byars-Winston, A., Baldwin, D. C., & Chang, S. (2015). The role of scientific communication skills in trainees’ intention to pursue biomedical research careers: A social cognitive analysis. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(4), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra, S., Mohammadnezhad, M., & Ward, P. (2018). Trust and communication in a doctor- patient relationship: A literature review. Journal of Healthcare Communication, 3(36), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-1654.100146
   Google Scholar
• Christopherson, E. G., Scheufele, D., & Smith, B. (2018). The civic science imperative. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, 46–52. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_civic_science_imperative
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., Boon, S., Young, N., & Danylchuk, A. J. (2017). Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS, 2(1), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0055
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, G. K. (2019). The U.S. land-grant university system: An overview. Congressional Research Service. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190829_R45897_5efa0858fffb8907390aa992527916db88aa8d54.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Crone, W. C., Dunwoody, S. L., Rediske, R. K., Ackerman, S. A., Zenner-Peterson, G. M., & Yaros, R. A. (2011). Informal science education: A practicum for graduate students. Innovative Higher Education, 36(5), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9176-x
   Google Scholar
• Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. (2021). Performing science in public: Science communication and scientific identity. In K. Kastenhofer, & S. Molyneux-Hodgson (Eds.), Community and identity in contemporary technosciences, sociology of the sciences yearbook 31 (pp. 207–223). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61728-8_10.
   Google Scholar
• Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PloS One, 11(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Yuan, S. (2020). Science communication training in North America: Preparing whom to do what with what effect? Science Communication, 00(0), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138
   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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. D. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer, S., Alexander, H., Baldwin, T. O., Freeze, H. H., Thompson, M., Hunt, G., & Snowflack, D. R. (2018). The art of science communication—A novel approach to science communication training. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 19(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handelsman, J. (2003, June). Teaching scientists to teach. HHMI Bulletin. https://ctl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/basic-page-supplementary-materials-files/hhmiperspective2003_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Harmatiy, O. (2021). Science coverage: What does the audience want and really need? Exploring media consumption in Ukraine. Journal of Creative Communications, 16(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258620981799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, V. (2020). Science communication efforts and identity at popular culture conventions. Science Communication, 42(3), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020928571
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, E. (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13010304
   Google Scholar
• Koswatta, T. J., Parrella, J. A., Leggette, H. R., Ramasubramanian, S., & Rutherford, T. (2022). Improving public science communication: a case study of scientists' needs when communicating beyond the academy. International Journal of Science Education, Part B. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2022.2055191
   Google Scholar
• Kuehne, L. M., Twardochleb, L. A., Fritschie, K. J., Mims, M. C., Lawrence, D. J., Gibson, P. P., Stewart-Koster, B., & Olden, J. D. (2013). Practical science communication strategies for graduate students. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1225–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leggette, H. R., Redwine, T., & Busick, B. (2020). Through reflective lenses: Enhancing students’ perceptions of their media writing skills. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 75(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695819852256
   Google Scholar
• Longnecker, N. (2016). An integrated model of science communication: More than providing evidence. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050401
   Google Scholar
• McLeod-Morin, A., Rumble, J. N., & Telg, R. W. (2021). Challenges and motivations of science communication: An administrative perspective at land-grant universities. Journal of Applied Communications, 105(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2387
   Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J. E., & Gascoigne, T. (2009, June). Teaching scientists to interact with media. Issues, 87, 41–44. http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-june-2009/teaching-scientists-interact-media.html
   Google Scholar
• Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674.
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/
   Google Scholar
• Neeley, E., Goldman, E., Smith, B., Baron, N., & Sunu, S. (2014). GradSciComm report and recommendations: Mapping the pathways to integrate science communication training into STEM graduate education. COMPASS. https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/GradSciComm_Roadmap_Final.compressed.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Newman, T. P. (2020). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. The American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advance Health Science Education: Theory Practice, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W., Brown, A. O., Carroll, M. L., Blenkarn, E., Austin, B., & Bretzlaff, T. (2021). Developing undergraduate student oral science communication through video reflection. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 11(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.1907630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 3), 14102–14109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321(5886), 204–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157780
   PubMed 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., & van Mil, M. H. (2020). From deficit to dialogue in science communication: The dialogue communication model requires additional roles from scientists. EMBO Reports, 21(9), e51278. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers, S., Wang, Z., & Schultz, J. C. (2020). A scale to measure science communication training effectiveness. Science Communication, 42(2), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020903057
   Google Scholar
• Rose, K. M., Markowitz, E. M., & Brossard, D. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(3), 1274–1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Society. (2006, June). Science communication excellence in science: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rubega, M. A., Burgio, K. R., MacDonald, A. A. M., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Capers, R. S., & Wyss, R. (2021). Assessment by audiences shows little effect of science communication training. Science Communication, 43(2), 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020971639
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruth, T. K., Rumble, J. N., Galindo-Gonzalez, S., Lundy, L. K., & Carter, H. S. (2019). Can anyone hear US? An exploration of echo chambers at a land-grant university. Journal of Applied Communication, 103(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2242
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, R. A., & Roop, H. A. (2019). Bridging the gap between science communication practice and theory: Reflecting on a decade of practitioner experience using polar outreach case studies to develop a new framework for public engagement design. Polar Record, 55(4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247418000608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seethaler, S., Evans, J. H., Gere, C., & Rajagopalan, R. M. (2019). Science, values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing beyond the deficit model. Science Communication, 41(3), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019847484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharman, A., & Howarth, C. (2016). Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and skeptical voices participate in the climate debate? Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 826–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516632453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, S. Z. K., & Perucho, J. A. U. (2018). Bringing science to bars: A strategy for effective science communication. Science Communication, 40(6), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018808298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Texas A&M University. (2022). Faculty & staff. https://www.tamu.edu/facultystaff/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Texas A&M University Division of Research. (2021). Texas A&M University research by the numbers. https://vpr.tamu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/DOR_Fact_Sheet_ResearchByTheNumbers_09_2021.pdf
   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. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Universities Australia. (2019). Public brains trust: Uni researcher’s Australia’s most trusted source of facts and evidence in public debates. https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/public-brains-trust-uni- researchers-australias-most-trusted-source-of-facts-and-evidence-in-public- debates/
   Google Scholar
• van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Meijman, F. J. (2012). A step-by-step approach for science communication practitioners: A design perspective. Journal of Science Communication, 11(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.11020203
   Google Scholar
• Wadgave, U., & Khairnar, M. R. (2019). Parametric test for non-normally distributed continuous data: For and against. Electronic Physician, 11(2), 7468–7470. https://doi.org/10.19082/7468
   Google Scholar
• Warren, D. R., Weiss, M. S., Wolfe, D. W., Friedlander, B., & Lewenstein, B. (2007). Lessons from science communication training. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 316(5828), 1122. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.316.5828.1122b
   Google Scholar
• Yeoman, K. H., James, H. A., & Bowater, L. (2011). Development and evaluation of an undergraduate science communication module. Bioscience Education, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.17.7
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar