This presentation focused on scientists' goals for communication and made a point of differentiating behavioral goals from nearer-term communication objectives (i.e., beliefs, feelings, frames that result from different communication choices. The data used came from two surveys of scientists; one done in the United States and one done in Canada.

1. Scientists’
Communication
Goals
John C. Besley
Ellis N. Brandt Professor
Communication Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University
Anthony Dudo
Associate Professor
Moody College of Communication
The University of Texas at Austin
Todd Newman
Assistant Professor
Life Sciences Communication
University of Wisconsin, Madison
This material is based upon
work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grant
AISL 1421214-1421723. 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. Before we start …
Canadian survey sample:
• December 2017-January 2018 (multiple reminders)
• 2012-2017 recipients of a specific federal natural science grant
• n = ~570 (for current study)
• Response rate: 17%
American survey sample:
• September 2018-October 2018
• Sampled from American 62 Association of American Universities STEM faculty
• n = ~515 (for current study)
• Response rate: 11%

3. A talk in three parts …
1. ‘Strategic [Risk/Science/Environmental]
Communication as Planned Behavior
• Goals vs. communication objectives and tactics
• Communication choices as planned behaviors
2. What we know about
scientists’ communication goals
3. Discussion and next steps

4. What do we mean by goals?
What do scientists hope will happen
from the time, money, and energy
they put into communicating?
Randen Pederson, Bridge to Nowwhere, via Flickr Creative Commons
?

5. What do we mean by goals?
Garry Knight, Old Cash Register; Eneas De Troya, Autos Electrico; Alhambra Source, Francisco Mora signs…; Arvis Geduss, Lazy Cat all via Flickr Creative Commons
What do scientists hope will happen
from the time, money, and energy
they put into communicating?

6. M
(mediator)
Why differentiate goals from objectives and tactics …

7. Why differentiate goals from objectives and tactics …

8. 2018 Canadian and AAU Scholar Importance Ratings
for Potential Engagement Goals (Very low ‘1’ – Very high ‘7’)
Recoded from 0-100 Slider; Response Rate, 17% and 11%, n =~500 for both samples
Ensuring policy makers use scientific evidence
Ensuring our culture values science
Ensuring adequate funding for … research
Fulfilling a duty to society
Helping people use science to
make better personal decisions
Strengthening my own professional reputation
(not asked in Canada)
5.88
5.53
5.53
5.07
4.96
6.01
5.82
5.21
5.02
5.15
3.29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Canada
USA

9. Some groups
don’t have
traditional
goals …
(or have a very proscribed set of goals)
Flickr creative commons – Referee Mick
Russell by Tony Austin; Margaret Cone.,
USDE; Rosie Del Campo, Laurel L Russwurm
Referees/Judges
Evaluators/convenersTeachers/Professors
Journalists

10. Communication Choices as Planned Behavior
Attitude
(Evaluative Beliefs about the
desired Tactic/Objective/Goal)
Descriptive and
Injunctive/Subjective Normative
Beliefs about the desired …
Self- and Response
Efficacy Beliefs about the
desired …
Willingness/Intent to
Prioritize/Perform the desired
Tactic/Objective/Goal
Prioritization/Performance
of the desired
Tactic/Objective/Goal
How do we get communicators
to make better communication choices?
Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of
planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz (Ed.), Health
behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

11. Communication Choices as Planned Behavior
Tactics
How do we get communicators
to make better communication choices?
Objectives Overall willingness
Best predictors of willingness to
prioritize tactics, objectives, and
overall engagement have been
• measures of ethicality/enjoyment
• perceived response efficacy

12. Potential Predicators of Engagement Goals
Canada USA
Variable Mean/% SD N Mean/% SD N
Age 51.65 11.18 559 55.01 12.3 500
Male 70% 573 68% 487
BIOlogy or medical science 45% 573 34% 516
CHEMistry 11% 573 10% 516
PHYSics or astronomy 12% 573 15% 516
SOCIAL/behavorial sciences or policy 4% 573 25% 516
ENGineering 20% 573 11% 516
GEOsciences 8% 573 11% 516
Computer science or MATH 18% 573 12% 516
History/philosophy/other HUManities 1% 573 3% 516
IDEOlogy (Canada)/ECONomic Ideology (AAU)(7 = Very liberal) 5.59 1.22 552 5.5 1.47 493
SOCial Issues IDEOlogy (AAU)(7 = Very liberal) 6.22 1.07 498
PAST engagement (alpha = .75/.64, Range 1-7) 2.14 1.04 560 2.45 1.11 506
· Face-to-face engagement …
· Interviews or briefings with a journalist or other media professional …
· Direct interaction with government policy makers …
· Online engagement through websites, blogs and/or social networks …
WILLingness to engage (alpha = .78 / .75, Range 1-7) 5.07 1.33 571 5.4 1.78 514
· Face-to-face engagement where (F2F) …
· Interviews or briefings with a journalist ... (MEDIA)
· DIRECT interaction with government policy makers…
· ONLINE … through websites, blogs and/or social networks …

13. Potential Predicators of Engagement Goals
Ensuring policy
makers use sci.
evidence …
Ensuring …
culture Values
Science
Ensuring
adequate
funding …
Helping people
… make better
personal decis. …
Fulfilling a duty
to society to
society
My own …
reputation
Canada US Canada US Canada US Canada US Canada US US
Age (M = 51, 55) -.11
Male (70%, 68%) -.17 -.12 -.11
Bio./Medical Sci. (45%, 34%) .10 .12 .10 .17
Chemistry (11%, 10%)
Physics/Astro. (4%, 25%) .10 -.08 -.10
Social/Behav. (4%, 25%) -.13 .10
Engineering (20%, 11%) -.14 .09 -.10
Geosciences (8%, 11%) -.08 .10 .12
Comp. Sci./Math (18%, 12%) -.11 -.21 -.15
Humanities (1%, 3%)
Ideo.– Lib. Economic (1-7) .09 .14 .11 .19
Ideo. – Lib. Social (1-7) n/a .14 n/a .14 n/a .15 n/a n/a

14. Potential Predicators of Engagement Goals
Ensuring policy
makers use sci.
evidence …
Ensuring …
culture Values
Science
Ensuring
adequate
funding …
Helping people
… make better
personal decis. …
Fulfilling a duty
to society to
society
My own …
reputation
Canada US Canada US Canada US Canada US Canada US US
Past engagement (a=.75, .64) .09 .13 .12 .17 .15 .23 .14
Engage. Willing. (a=.78, .75) .15 .21 .15 .18 .09 .16 .21 .23 .18 .18
Perceived audience
fairness (a = .79, .75)
-.09 .17 .12 .04
Perceived audience
Knowledge
-.14 -.09 -.09
Perceived audience
ability to understand
.08 .09 .11 .17 .16
Descriptive norms for
engage. part. (a=..80, .80)
.11 .13
Injunctive norms for
engage. Part. (a = .55)
Resp. engagement self
efficacy (a= .84, .80)
.09 .10 .19 .18 .11
Resp. engagement response
efficacy (a = . 67, .65)
.11 .19 .17 .28 .13 .19 .23 .26 .18

15. Ethics: You need to be open to changing your
own goals (and beliefs, feelings, and frames) Lindsay Rustan, USDA, Hubbard Brook

16. Final
Thoughts
• Engagement goals not seemingly
driven by field/demographics
• Engagement willingness and perceived
response efficacy associated with higher
overall goal prioritization (not specific patterns)
• Looking to field a goal-specific survey with
measures for goal-specific attitudinal,
normative, and efficacy, beliefs
Curious if …
a) Goals are open to change
b) Having clear goals can improve quality
through more evidence-based selection
of objectives and tactics

17. An example of why objectives/goals matter …
(and my most frequent science communication conversation)
“We want to decrease misunderstandings about ________?”
What types of
misunderstandings?
Cause/effect? Risks/
benefits? Efficacy? Norms?
The people involved?
Why do you want
to decrease
misunderstandings? What
do you think will happen if
you succeed?
Why frame in terms of
misunderstandings? What
might you want people to
believe and feel about the
issues and people involved?
(The goal questions) (The objectives questions)

18. This material is based upon
work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grant
AISL 1421214-1421723. 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.