Learning (how) to listen: a key aspect in training future scientists for meaningful dialogue with society

References

• Baldwin, W. (1999). Information no one else knows: The value of self-report. In A. A. Stone, C. A. Cachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 3–8). Lawrence.
   Google Scholar
• Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017a). Preparing scientists to be science communicators. In P. G. Patrick (Ed.), Preparing informal science educators: Perspectives from science communication and education (pp. 437–471).
   Google Scholar
• Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2017b). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 7(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barel-Ben David, Y., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). Evaluating science communication training – Going beyond self-reports. In T. P. Newman (Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 122–137). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Lee, N. M., & Pressgrove, G. (2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020949547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications Inc.
   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: Communication and Public Engagement, 2(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.611627
   Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2021). Rethinking science communication as the social conversation around science. Journal of Science Communication, 20(03), Y01–Y11. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030401
   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
• Davies, S. R. (2022). Science communication at a time of crisis: Emergency, democracy, and persuasion. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(9), 5103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One, 11(2), e0148867. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Yuan, S. (2021). Science communication training in North America: Preparing whom to do what with what effect? Science Communication, 43(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A. (2020). Towards a science of the acquisition of expert performance in sports: Clarifying the differences between deliberate practice and other types of practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1688618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobar, O. (2011). Public dialogue and deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners. UK Beacons for Public Engagement.
   Google Scholar
• Fassaert, T., van Dulmen, S., Schellevis, F., & Bensing, J. (2007). Active listening in medical consultations: Development of the Active Listening Observation Scale (ALOS-global). Patient Education and Counseling, 68(3), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamlyn, B., Shanahan, M., Lewis, H., O’Donoghue, E., Hanson, T., & Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers: A study on behalf of a Consortium of UK public research funders.
   Google Scholar
• Hargie, O. (2019). Skill in theory: Communication as skilled performance. In O. Hargie (Ed.), The handbook of communication skills (4th ed.) (pp. 9–40). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: Advice from a professional science communicator. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 70, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230500187227
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, E., & Holliman, R. (2016). Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 6(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2014.995743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuchel, L. (2020). Insights for designing science communication training from formal science communication. In T. P. Newman (Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 104–121). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Lewenstein, B. V., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2022). How should we organize science communication trainings to achieve competencies? International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 12(4), 289–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumivero. (2017). NVivo (Version 12). www.lumivero.com
   Google Scholar
• Manusov, V. (2020). Interpersonal communication. In D. L. Worthington, & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The handbook of listening (pp. 103–120). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• McComas, K. A., & Besley, J. C. (2011). Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Analysis, 31(11), 1749–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01676.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational design research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 131–140). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., & Schreiner, M. (2008). Learning to listen: Teaching an active listening strategy to preservice education professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121407311241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 7(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, T. P. (2020). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 1–5.
   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. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L., van Baalen, S., & van Mil, M. H. (2022). How to fulfill the expert role in public dialogue: The Dutch dialogue on human germline genetic modification as a case. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 985759. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.985759
   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), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rost, M. (2020). Instructional design and assessment. In D. L. Worthington, & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The handbook of listening (pp. 265–278). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   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
• Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 27(4), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640402700407
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2020). Co-constructing uniqueness: An interpersonal process promoting dialogue. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 28(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2020.1684289
   Web of Science ®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
• Vickery, A. J. (2018). Measurement profiles. Profile 4. Active Listening Observation Scale (ALOS). In D. L. Worthington, & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (pp. 174–179). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Weger, H., Castle, G. R., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer interviews: The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. International Journal of Listening, 24(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010903466311
   Google Scholar
• Weger, H., Castle Bell, G., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.813234
   Google Scholar
• Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(05), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301
   Google Scholar
• Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (2000). Listening education in the 21st century. International Journal of Listening, 14(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2000.10499040
   Google Scholar
• Worthington, D. L., & Bodie, G. D. (2018). In D. L. Worthington, & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (pp. 3–17). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Worthington, D. L., & Bodie, G. D. (2020). In D. L. Worthington, & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The handbook of listening (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   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: Communication and Public Engagement, 7(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar