Dataset Information

Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

ABSTRACT: Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists' report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public's trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.

SUBMITTER: Dudo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4767388 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Dudo Anthony A Besley John C JC

PloS one 20160225 2

Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists' report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public's trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights ...[more]

PMID: 26913869

Similar Datasets

Project description:Scientists are required to communicate science and research not only to other experts in the field, but also to scientists and experts from other fields, as well as to the public and policymakers. One fundamental suggestion when communicating with non-experts is to avoid professional jargon. However, because they are trained to speak with highly specialized language, avoiding jargon is difficult for scientists, and there is no standard to guide scientists in adjusting their messages. In this research project, we present the development and validation of the data produced by an up-to-date, scientist-friendly program for identifying jargon in popular written texts, based on a corpus of over 90 million words published in the BBC site during the years 2012-2015. The validation of results by the jargon identifier, the De-jargonizer, involved three mini studies: (1) comparison and correlation with existing frequency word lists in the literature; (2) a comparison with previous research on spoken language jargon use in TED transcripts of non-science lectures, TED transcripts of science lectures and transcripts of academic science lectures; and (3) a test of 5,000 pairs of published research abstracts and lay reader summaries describing the same article from the journals PLOS Computational Biology and PLOS Genetics. Validation procedures showed that the data classification of the De-jargonizer significantly correlates with existing frequency word lists, replicates similar jargon differences in previous studies on scientific versus general lectures, and identifies significant differences in jargon use between abstracts and lay summaries. As expected, more jargon was found in the academic abstracts than lay summaries; however, the percentage of jargon in the lay summaries exceeded the amount recommended for the public to understand the text. Thus, the De-jargonizer can help scientists identify problematic jargon when communicating science to non-experts, and be implemented by science communication instructors when evaluating the effectiveness and jargon use of participants in science communication workshops and programs.

Project description:ImportanceAs COVID-19 vaccine distribution continues, policy makers are struggling to decide which groups should be prioritized for vaccination.ObjectiveTo assess US adults' preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccine prioritization.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study involved 2 independent, online surveys of US adults aged 18 years and older, 1 conducted by Gallup from September 14 to 27, 2020, and the other conducted by the COVID Collaborative from September 19 to 25, 2020. Samples were weighted to reflect sociodemographic characteristics of the US population.ExposuresRespondents were asked to prioritize groups for COVID-19 vaccine and to rank their prioritization considerations.Main outcomes and measuresThe study assessed prioritization preferences and agreement with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine.ResultsA total of 4735 individuals participated, 2730 (1474 men [54.1%]; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [14.5] years) in the Gallup survey and 2005 (944 men [47.1%]; 203 participants [21.5%] aged 55-59 years) in the COVID Collaborative survey. In both the Gallup COVID-19 Panel and COVID Collaborative surveys, respondents listed health care workers (Gallup, 93.6% [95% CI, 91.2%-95.3%]; COVID Collaborative, 80.0% [95% CI, 78.0%-81.9%]) and adults of any age with serious comorbid conditions (Gallup, 78.6% [95% CI, 75.2%-81.7%]; COVID Collaborative, 72.9% [95% CI, 70.7%-74.9%]) among their 4 highest priority groups. Respondents of all political affiliations agreed with prioritizing Black, Hispanic, Native American, and other communities that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (Gallup, 74.2% [95% CI, 70.6%-77.5%]; COVID Collaborative, 84.9% [95% CI, 83.1%-86.5%]), and COVID Collaborative respondents were willing to be preceded in line by teachers and childcare workers (92.5%; 95% CI, 91.2%-93.7%) and grocery workers (85.9%; 95% CI, 84.2%-87.5%). Older respondents in both surveys were significantly less likely than younger respondents to prioritize healthy adults aged 65 years and older among their 4 highest priority groups (Gallup, 23.7% vs 39.1% [χ2 = 2160.8; P < .001]; COVID Collaborative, 23.3% vs 28.8% [χ2 = 5.0198; P = .03]). COVID Collaborative respondents believed the 4 most important considerations for prioritization were preventing COVID-19 spread (78.4% [95% CI, 76.3%-80.3%]), preventing the most deaths (72.1% [95% CI, 69.9%-74.2%]), preventing long-term complications (68.9% [66.6%-71.9%]), and protecting frontline workers (63.8% [95% CI, 61.5%-66.1%]).Conclusions and relevanceUS adults broadly agreed with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's prioritization framework. Respondents endorsed prioritizing racial/ethnic communities that are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, and older respondents were significantly less likely than younger respondents to endorse prioritizing healthy people older than 65 years. This provides reason for caution about COVID-19 vaccine distribution plans that prioritize healthy adults older than a cutoff age without including those younger than that age with preexisting conditions, that aim solely to prevent the most deaths, or that give no priority to frontline workers or disproportionately affected communities.

Dataset Information

Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Publications

Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets