2019 Hubbard Brooke Cooperators Meeting
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•148 vues
Year 2 results for LTER science communication project.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à 2019 Hubbard Brooke Cooperators Meeting
Similaire à 2019 Hubbard Brooke Cooperators Meeting (20)
Plus de John C. Besley
Plus de John C. Besley (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
2019 Hubbard Brooke Cooperators Meeting
- 1. The Culture of Public Engagement at Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest: Year II This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grants AISL 1421214-1421723, and 1713197. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
- 2. Who am I?
- 3. Who am I? Public Opinion about Science and Scientists Scientists’ opinions about the public and public engagement (a.k.a. science communication
- 4. Task: Understand engagement culture at Hubbard Brook and Harvard Forest Method: Three rounds of interviews and surveys Fall 2017 Survey (70% response rate) Winter 2019 Survey (53% rate) Fall 2017 semi-structured interviews (n = 17) Additional interviews planned for Summer/Fall 2019
- 5. Today … 2019 survey data on … 1. Overall public engagement levels 2. Attitudes of engagement 3. Attitudes about engagement staff (Will not talk about modeling of data aimed at understanding WHY researchers might hold the communication beliefs and goals they hold.)
- 6. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times (4) About once a month (5) Multiple times per month (6) Once a week or more (7) Past Year Face-to-Face Engagement Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 ESA 2016 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 7. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times (4) About once a month (5) Multiple times per month (6) Once a week or more (7) Past Year Online Engagement Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 ESA 2016 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 8. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times (4) About once a month (5) Multiple times per month (6) Once a week or more (7) Past Year Policy Engagement Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 ESA 2016 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 9. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times (4) About once a month (5) Multiple times per month (6) Once a week or more (7) Past Year News Media Engagement Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 ESA 2016 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 10. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Never (1) Once (1) 2-5 times (3) 6-11 times (4) About once a month (5) Multiple times per month (6) Once a week or more (7) Past Year Youth Engagement Hubbard 2019 Hubbard 2017 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 11. 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 F2F Online Media Policy Engagement Willingness (1 = Not at all willing, 7 = Very Willing) Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 ESA 2016 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 12. 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 F2F Online Media Policy Perceived Engagement Opportunity (1 = No opportunity, 7 = A great deal of opportunity) Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 Hubbard ~n = 39, 35, Harvard ~n = 46, 37
- 13. Fall 2017 Survey 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Attitudes, Normative Beliefs, & Efficacy Beliefs (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) Hubbard 2017 Hubbard 2019 Harvard 2017 Harvard 2019 Attitude: “Engagement enjoyable to me…” Attitude: “Engagement frustrating to me …” Norm: “Colleagues would respect…” Norm: “Colleagues regularly participate…” Efficacy: Self (5Qs, a = .86, 81) Efficacy: “I do not have time …”) Efficacy: Response (3Qs, a = .65, 65) Overall: “I had a positive experience …”
- 14. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support public engagement activities, including staff The core operating budget of institutions or organization (not project-based grants) Budgets on new natural science research grants in your area Notes: Harvard Forest had some relatively high percentages that push the mean (Perceived actual budget being spent on engagement = ~8.5%) 14 18 16 7 12 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Budget Respondents think Should Be use to Support Public Engagement, Including Staff (%) Hubbard HarvardThe NSF budget for LTERs Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
- 15. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support public engagement activities, including staff Most public engagement activities should be funded from stand-alone, engagement-specific grants, supplements, or other funding sources … Most public engagement activities should generally be funded from institutions core budgets, not individual grants. Scientists should generally include a budget for public engagement activities in their federal grant proposals…. Most public engagement activities should generally not be funded… (could be voluntary) 77 31 31 0 84 24 54 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 Where respondents think Engagement Funding Should Originate (%) Hubbard Harvard Note: Respondents could provide more than one response
- 16. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support public engagement activities, including staff Never (1) 3% Rarely (2) 37% Sometimes (3) 34% Often (4) 23% Very often (5) 3% Never (1) 6% Rarely (2) 18% Sometimes (3) 35% Often (4) 23% Very often (5) 18% [I] general, how frequently … do you directly interact with public engagement staff at Hubbard Brook or Harvard Forest (e.g., face-to- face, phone, personal email, video-conference)? Hubbard Brook Harvard Forest Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
- 17. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support public engagement activities, including staff [[H]ow how frequently or infrequently do you receive indirect communication from public engagement staff at Hubbard Brook or Harvard Forest (e.g., group email, newsletters)? Rarely (2) 6% Sometimes (3) 48% Often (4) 46% Never (1) 9% Rarely (2) 12% Sometimes (3) 30% Often (4) 34% Very often (5) 15% Hubbard Brook Harvard Forest Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
- 18. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support public engagement activities, including staff Perceived Respect/Warmth (4Qs, alpha = .78) (e.g., Respect/Disrespect; Share/Not Values, etc.) Perceived Efficacy (3Qs, alpha = .74) (e.g., increase/decrease impact, etc.) Perceived Competence Scale (4Qs, alpha = 74) (e.g., Skilled/Unskilled; Much/Little Expertise etc.) How much/little expectations to work with public engagement staff (3Q, alpha = .81) (colleagues, leadership, funders) 4.19 4.34 3.71 2.80 2.84 4.41 4.26 3.98 3.09 3.23 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Perceptions of Public Engagement Staff (all measured with 5-point, item specific scales) Increase/Decrease workload Hubbard ~n = 35, Harvard ~n = 37
- 19. Percentage of each type of budget that respondents think should be used to support public engagement activities, including staffNext steps • Late summer/fall interviews (and more next year) • Late spring 2020 survey Where we’re at … • There seems to general engagement support, moderate expectations/opportunities … • Key driver seems to be ‘efficacy’ of efforts • How might we increase interest in support for long-term engagement infrastructure? This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grants AISL 1421214-1421723, and 1713197. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
Notes de l'éditeur
- Key points: Most respondents at both sites are engaging in a face-to-face format about 2-5 times per year. There are still a few respondents who aren’t engaging at all and some that engage quite frequently.
- Key points: Most respondents at both sites are engaging in online engagement either zero and or about 2-5 times per year. There are still a few respondents who aren’t engaging at all and some that engage quite frequently.
- Key points: Most respondents never engage or engage a few times per year with policy makers. There are a very small number who engage more regularly.
- Key points: Most respondents at both sites either never engage or only a engage a few times per year. There are still a few respondents who aren’t engaging at all and some that engage quite frequently.
- Key points: Most respondents never engage or engage a few times per year with youth There are a very small number who engage more regularly.
- Key Points There remains a high willingness to engage, although maybe not as much online.
- Key points Willingness does not seem to match opportunity but we don’t’ know what amount of opportunity people want (maybe the question should be not enough/too much opportunity). Face-to-face opportunity at Harvard seems to have jumped up between 2017 and 2019; same goes for online and policy at Hubbard Brooke (not sure what to make of that; maybe nothing).
- Key points No real changes from2017 to 2019 Generally people see engagement as enjoyable; may be a slight uptick at Harvard Respondents think their colleagues respect those who engage. Respondents feel fairly efficacious and think engagement can be quite efficacious; tend not to say they have too little time. Overwhelming have had positive experiences.
- Key points General trend was for people to rate goals less highly; order stayed pretty much the same with wanting people to use evidence ranking most highly. Wonder if part of being more strategic is to recognize that you can’t prioritize everything highly? That’s probably reading in too much, however.
- Key Points Not much moving in the relative scoring of communication objectives, either though maybe some minimal absolute decline at both sites. Would love to see listening and caring climb the ranks.
- Key points Generally, people think we should spent 10-15% of budgets on public engagement activities; which is about half of what they think is currently being spent.
- Key points Most respondents seem to think that engagement should be written into core grants, but other sources might also make sense.
- Key points Still lots of people who don’t feel like they hear too often from PE staff; assume that’s not a good. Harvard Forest seems to be doing a little better (and worse?)
- Key points Still lots of people who don’t feel like they hear too often from PE staff; assume that’s not a good. Harvard Forest seems to be doing a little better (and worse?)
- Key points Respondents seem to see PE staff as competent and respectful. A little less agreement on perceived impact Worrying bit is that many respondents indicate that PE staff increase, rather than decrease, their workload. They also don’t think there’s much expectation from their colleagues to work with engagement staff.
- Flickr creative commons Cash register … Luz Bratcher, Vintage Cash Register Petition … Garry Knight, Signature Cat … Ben Grantham