LETTERS PUBLISHED ONLINE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators Anthony Dudo*, LeeAnn Kahlor, Niveen AbiGhannam, Allison Lazard and Ming-Ching Liang The American public remains unfamiliar with nanotechnology despite more than a decade of investment and development1. Nanoscientists have an opportunity to contribute to public conversations about their work, and its potential implications, through their engagement with lay audiences and media professionals2. Indeed, the leaderships of many professional scientific organizations have placed a renewed focus on the public communication of science, particularly in the light of drastic changes in the information landscape and the increasing politicization of many technological and scientific issues3,4. However, we have a limited understanding of nanoscientists’ perceptions and behaviours regarding their participation in public communication. Here, we report survey results that provide an examination of the public communication behaviours of nanoscientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), an integrated partnership of US research institutions designed to facilitate nanoscale research and development. Our results suggest that nanoscientists are relatively frequent public communicators who commonly associate their communication efforts with positive impacts on their professional success. We also identify a handful of characteristics that drive nanoscientists’ intentions to communicate with the public about nanotechnology. Research on the social dimensions of nanotechnology is plentiful. Among the dimensions explored are media coverage5 and public debates6 about nanotechnology, nanorelated risk perceptions among lay publics7,8 and public policy that deals with the assessment of and regulatory frameworks for nanotechnology9, as well as perceptions of these dimensions within the expert community. The perceptions focus has examined scientists’ views of nanotechnology’s potential risks and benefits, the implications of risks and benefits for regulation10 and how these experts’ views compare with those of the public11. Despite the progress made, what remains lacking is a clear sense of nanoscientists as public communicators. Scientists have traditionally perceived numerous barriers to public communication, chief among them a lack of time and internal support, concerns about inaccurate media depictions of their research and negative feedback from their colleagues12. Yet despite these apparent impediments, there is evidence that scientists writ large are more-active public communicators than is often assumed anecdotally13–15. Although this evidence may imply an encouraging trend, it is necessary to consider the specific case of nanotechnology. This is not only because research shows that scientists’ engagement activity can vary as a function of their particular discipline16,17, but also given the unique strategic emphasis that has been placed on developing nanotechnologies in ways that integrate societal considerations18. To date, only one survey-based study has assessed nanoscientists about issues related to communication. Corley et al.19 examined nanoscientists’ perceptions about the quality of media coverage
of nanotechnology research and their preferences regarding the ideal timing for public communication about new findings. They found that nanoscientists tended to view media coverage of nanotechnology as less credible and less accurate than the coverage of the general science media, and that their support for the ‘immediate’ communication of scientific findings to the public was associated with having more positive views of the media coverage of nanotechnology. They also found that nanoscientists feel a sense of responsibility to communicate their research to public audiences. Despite the insights that emerged from the Corely et al. study, there remains much to learn about nanoscientists as public communicators. Crucially, we do not yet have an empirical sense of how often nanoscientists actually engage in public communication activities, how likely they are to do so in the future and what salient factors drive nanoscientists towards—or away from—these activities. These issues, however, must be better understood if the nanotech community desires to engage with a broader array of publics in meaningful conversations about nano innovations and the risks, benefits and regulatory challenges they pose2. With this context in mind, the first goal of our study was to provide a descriptive snapshot of nanoscientists’ self-reported propensity to communicate with lay audiences. We were particularly interested in approximating the number of interactions nanoscientists have with lay audiences and the extent to which they evaluate these interactions in terms of their own professional success. We first asked nanoscientists about the amount of contact they had with media professionals and lay audiences within the five years between 2008 and 2013. As shown in Fig. 1, our results suggest that nanoscientists reported being relatively frequent public communicators. Nearly 80% of respondents indicated that they had participated in one or more direct public communication activity (for example, gave a lecture for lay people at a public meeting, talk or conference; helped to organize or conduct a public science event), and nearly half (49%) indicated that they had participated in four or more of these direct public engagement activities. Nanoscientists report slightly less contact with media professionals than with the public, but nearly two-thirds (63%) noted that they had at least one interaction with a media professional, and more than one-quarter (27%) reported that they had four or more media interactions. However, how do these scientists evaluate their public communication efforts in terms of their professional success? Quite positively, it appears—as shown in Fig. 2, three-quarters (75%) of nanoscientists agreed that his or her “public communication efforts have had a positive impact” on them professionally, with only 4% indicating disagreement with this statement. And nanoscientists evaluated their interactions with media professionals similarly, with 58% reporting agreement that his or her “contact with the media has had a positive impact” on them professionally, with only 5% noting disagreement with this statement.
Moody College of Communication, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. * e-mail: [email protected] NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
841
LETTERS
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
Per cent of respondents
60 50
Media contact Direct contact with lay audiences
40 30 20 10 0 No contact
One to three contacts Four or more contacts
Figure 1 | The amount of contact nanoscientists report having with media professionals and directly with lay audiences in 2008–2013 (five years). Contact with media professionals is shown in the light columns (n = 216) and direct contact with lay audiences is shown in the dark columns (n = 214).
The second goal of this study was to identify predictors of nanoscientists’ willingness to engage in public communication activities. To address this goal, we constructed and tested two hierarchical ordinary least-squares regression models (see Table 1). One model focused on predictors of nanoscientists’ intentions to communicate with media professionals (see Table 1, column 1), and another model focused on predictors of nanoscientists’ intentions to communicate directly to target audiences (see Table 1, column 2). This approach enabled us to see if nanoscientists are driven towards different pathways of public communication by different mechanisms. We specified our models to reflect recent empirical research that has helped identify characteristics commonly associated with scientists’ public communication efforts. We focused on behavioural intentions because they are commonly associated with actual behaviours20, particularly for behaviours that are non-habitual and occur within changing contexts21. To provide a stricter test of the endogenous variables, we also controlled for nanoscientists’ previous amount of mediated and direct communication activity. As evidenced by the adjusted R 2 values, each regression model explains a large portion of the variance in the criterion variable. (See Supplementary Table 1 for a list of the survey questions and descriptive statistics for the endogenous variables.) The hierarchical regression analyses reveal a handful of key predictive factors, many of which cut across direct and indirect engagement intentions. Consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
(a seminal social psychological theory that helps to explain and predict behavioural outcomes22) we found a robust link between attitude and behavioural intentions. Specifically, our data suggest that nanoscientists who regarded public communication as important for the welfare of society were more likely to intend to engage in direct and mediated public communication activities. This finding echoes recent studies that have unearthed the same relationship among aggregate samples of research scientists across disciplines23. We found no relationship, however, between another dimension of attitude—nanoscientists’ personal enjoyment of public communication—and their willingness to participate. Although evidence of personal enjoyment’s influence has been found among biomedical researchers24, it appears that nanoscientists’ intentions to engage stem from a belief that engagement efforts can impact society positively. This belief, in part, may reflect the considerable focus the US government has placed on the exploration and promotion of the ethical aspects of nanotechnology25. Our results also revealed a robust relationship between nanoscientists’ orientations towards media and publicity with their likelihood of future engagement in public communication activities. That is, nanoscientists who perceived professional benefits from generating publicity about their research (for example, helping to attract research funding and quality students, helping to generate more frequent citations of their work) were more willing to participate in direct and mediated public communication. Similarly, nanoscientists who were more motivated to be responsive and helpful to publicity efforts (for example, cooperating with journalists, helping institutional media relations efforts) were also more likely to have intentions to engage. This finding highlights a media sensitivity among nanoscientists that dovetails with a broader trend among scientists to value the professional importance of media visibility13,26. We also found that nanoscientists’ potential involvement in engagement activities is predicated on institutional media policies, such that nanoscientists with autonomy to talk to media professionals are more likely to intend to do so. This result suggests that institutional efforts to expand external relations structures and policies (for example, through media relations offices) may potentially be undermined if nanoscientists perceive that these efforts constrain their individual freedom to respond to media inquiries or seek publicity related to their research. This creates an interesting need to balance (1) the willingness of these researchers to have a voice in the conversation with (2) an institution’s need to make sure these conversations are happening.
80 70
"My contact with the media has had a positive impact on me professionally."
Per cent of respondents
60
"My public communication efforts have had a positive impact on me professionally."
50 40 30 20 10 0 Strongly disagree or disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Strongly agree or agree
Figure 2 | Nanoscientists’ evaluations of the professional impacts of their contact with media professionals and direct public engagement efforts. The impact of contact with media professionals is shown in the light columns (n = 134) and the impact of direct public engagement efforts is shown in the dark columns (n = 168). 842
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
Table 1 | Predicting nanoscientists’ intention to engage in public communication. Dependent variables: two pathways of public communication Block 1: Control variables Age Gender (male coded high) Status Previous behaviour (context-specific) Incremental R 2 (%) Block 2: Media consumption and use Consumption of online-only media for science news Consumption of traditional media for science news Use of online tools to communicate about science Incremental R 2 (%) Block 3: Theory of planned behaviour Perceived behavioural controls Communication self-efficacy Communication training Attitudes Personal enjoyment Importance for society Norms Negative external Positive external Incremental R 2 (%) Block 4: Media orientations Presumed media influence Media motivations Communication autonomy Medialization of colleagues Medialization of self Incremental R 2 (%) R 2 (%) Adjusted R 2 (%) ANOVA
Engagement via media
Direct engagement
–0.07 0.04 –0.07 0.19** 12.9***
–0.13 0.03 –0.03 0.26*** 16.0***
0.03
0.03
–0.02
–0.03
0.17*
–0.01
6.6***
2.8
0.07 –0.02
0.12* 0.09
–0.01 0.24***
0.07 0.18**
–0.01 0.07 12.6***
0.09 0.04 16.1***
0.19** 0.17** 0.13* 0.11 –0.07 8.9*** 41.1 35.7 F 18,215, 7.63***
0.18** 0.20** 0.12* 0.02 0.01 8.3*** 43.3 38.1 F 18,215, 8.34***
This table depicts the results of hierarchical ordinary least-squares regression analysis in which the independent variables were entered in blocks into the regression equation according to their assumed causal order. Each column depicts the final model for each of two dependent variables, showing which independent variables are significantly related to each dependent variable while controlling for the effects of all the other independent variables in the model. The cell entries in each column are standardized regression coefficients. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Our analyses also identify characteristics germane to one particular pathway of public communication. Nanoscientists who spend more time using online tools (for example, microblogs, social networks, forums) to communicate about science were more likely to express a willingness to participate in public communication through media professionals. This result seems logical; nanoscientists who spend more time communicating about science online have greater opportunity to encounter and interact with media professionals on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook than that of their colleagues who limit or avoid this activity. If these encounters are mostly positive, it is not surprising to expect that these nanoscientists were more interested in engaging with media professionals in the future about their work. It is interesting that there was not a relationship between intentions to communicate directly with the public and the use of new media tools. This suggests that there may be a perception among nanoscientists that social media tools are for reaching journalists and bloggers more than for reaching laypersons, per se. This perception is curious, however, given that these online tools can also enable nanoscientists to communicate in ways that bypass journalist intermediaries. This result highlights the need for future research on the role new media tools play in nanoscientists’ public communication perceptions and behaviours.
LETTERS
Our findings also suggest that nanoscientists’ intentions to participate in direct public communication were spurred by the level of interpersonal communication skill (that is, communication self-efficacy) they assign to themselves. Although this result is consistent with theory and previous communication research focused on biomedical researchers27, nanoscientists’ perceived interpersonal communication acumen is not directly associated with their intentions to participate in mediated communication. Nanoscientists may perceive direct communication environments as spaces in which their personal communication skills can exert larger impacts on the nature and outcomes of the engagement activity. Our multivariate findings emerged after statistically controlling for the effect of nanoscientists’ previous behaviour. Unsurprisingly, nanoscientists who had engaged in public communication activities were more likely to express intentions to engage in these activities in the future. Yet this relationship did not nullify the effects of the other endogenous variables. As such, we can be that much more confident in the veracity of the results and the implications they pose. Overall, we unearthed some clear insights about nanoscientists as public communicators, each of which has important implications for expert–public communications about nanotechnology. First, our results indicate that nanoscientists, similar to researchers in some other disciplines14, are currently involved in public engagement activities, and with some frequency. Furthermore, a large portion of the NNIN-affiliated researchers we surveyed have not only engaged in public communication activity, but they also regard their outreach efforts as bolstering their careers, and they intend to partake in public communication efforts in the future. Second, our findings identified several individual-level variables that are strongly related to one’s likelihood of engaging in public communication in the future. For example, nanoscientists seem driven towards this behaviour, in part, as a result of a sense of social responsibility to communicate their research to public audiences. This finding suggests that the obligation nanoscientists feel to communicate their research findings to the public19 probably translates into behaviour. Also, public communication about nanoscience is associated strongly with the perception of the self as an effective communicator and as one who demonstrates a heightened understanding of and sensitivity to the media and publicity’s role in nanoscience. In closing, nanoscientists have an opportunity to contribute to public conversations about their work and its potential implications through their communications with lay audiences and the media. Understanding nanoscientists’ baseline engagement behaviours and the factors associated with these behaviours can help nanotech communities improve their engagement efforts. Our results suggest that nanoscientists’ value such efforts, both broadly and in terms of their own professional development. Nanoscientists do not begrudge outreach; they regard it as gratifying and necessary. Within the broader context of calls for the improvement and proliferation of science communication training4,28, parties interested in strengthening dialogues between nanotech communities and the public should be encouraged by these results to invest further in the public communication of nanoscience. Specifically, our results imply that communication training for nanoscientists should aim to bolster their communication capacity, familiarity with media and publicity, and the perception that their research is relevant to the public and has important societal implications.
Methods The data source for this study was a mixed-mode, multiwave survey of nanotechnology scientists and engineers. The survey was administered to nanotechnology scientists and engineers affiliated with the NSF’s NNIN. The NNIN is an integrated partnership of 14 US-based nanotechnology research facilities (listed below). In 2012, the NNIN provided the study principle investigators (PIs) with a list that contained the names and contact information for roughly one-sixth of its total 6,054 members. This list, which was sorted by NNIN staff to include randomly chosen individuals from each of the 14 member institutions, consisted of 1,009 members. Between May and June 2013, our research team cleaned this contact list to
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
843
LETTERS
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
identify and remove individuals no longer located at the NNIN-affiliated institutions, which resulted in a contact list of 994 nanoscientists and engineers. Using Qualtrics software, we then conducted a four-wave online survey following the Tailored Design Method29. To help bolster the rate of responses, we offered a $10 e-gift card to Amazon.com for the first 85 respondents (respondents could opt out of the e-gift card offer). Between the second- and third-online survey waves, we also attempted to contact all of the non-responders by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted from July to October 2013. The survey yielded data from 216 completed questionnaires, a response rate of 25% after the contact list was adjusted to 878 to account for hard and soft bounce backs. This response rate is consistent with response rates associated with surveys of expert communities. SPSS v.21 was used to generate the descriptive and multivariate analyses reported in this study. Supplementary Table 1 contains a full list of the survey questions and the corresponding indices used in analyses. Surveying researchers affiliated with the NNIN centres enabled us to access scientists and engineers entrenched in cutting-edge nanoscale research. Specifically, we were able to administer our survey to respondents who reported actively participating in nanoscience research across a range of subdisciplines and in varying roles. Of the sample, 89% reported ‘research’ as their primary job responsibility. Respondents also reported that their primary research ranged across at least ten subdisciplines, among them engineering (n = 103), materials (n = 78), biomedicine (n = 52), devices (n = 50), photonics (n = 42), physics (n = 34) and energy (n = 31); respondents could report more than one primary subdiscipline. The sample also exhibited variance across career level (for example, 30% reported being ‘group leaders or PIs’ and 59% reported having ‘no active management role’) and was relatively young (M = 34.9 years, standard deviation = 10.6 years). This latter characteristic is a welcome difference from the majority of scientist surveys that have reported results based predominantly on samples of older, senior-level scientists12,14. The sample also carries limitations. There is a risk of non-response bias such that our respondents may have been nanoscientists who were predisposed towards public communication. Broadly, this phenomenon is a commonplace challenge when studying scientist communicators30, which is why we supplemented our online survey with personal phone calls and offered a modest incentive to participants. It is also possible that our sampling of NNIN-affiliated researchers may have led to an overestimation of nanoscientists’ level of engagement given the broader impact requirements of NSF-funded research. As noted above, however, we reached nanoscientists working across career levels, which suggests that, although PIs might be assumed to be involved directly with addressing broader impacts in their research projects, it is not a given that this experience is consistent across respondents, the majority of whom have no active management role. Furthermore, the NNIN has an education outreach programme focused primarily on teachers and students, but, as far as we are aware, it has no broad mandate that requires researchers at its affiliated centres to participate in public communication. It is also true that our sampling of researchers at NNIN-affiliated facilities precluded us from sampling nanoscientists employed at other productive research universities. Although we have no reason to suspect that their responses would be systematically different to those within our sample, we recommend that future research on nanoscientists as public communicators employs varied sampling procedures. Overall, we believe the strengths of our sample vastly outweigh its limitations. The NNIN-affiliated nanotechnology research centres include the Cornell Nanoscale Facility at Cornell University, the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility at Stanford University, the Lurie Nanofabrication Facility at the University of Michigan, the Nanotechnology Research Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Center for Nanotechnology at the University of Washington, the Penn State Nanofabrication Facility at Pennsylvania State University, Nanotech at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Nanofabrication Center at the University of Minnesota, the Microelectronics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin, the Center for Nanoscale Systems at Harvard University, the Howard Nanoscale Science and Engineering Facility at Howard University, the Nano Research Facility at Washington University at St Louis, Nanofab at Arizona State University and the Colorado Nanofabrication Laboratory at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Received 1 February 2014; accepted 8 August 2014; published online 14 September 2014
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
5. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S. & Scheufele, D. A. The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Comm. Q. 88, 55–75 (2011). 6. Berube, D. M. Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 23–37 (2008). 7. Pidgeon, N., Harthom, B. H., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009). 8. Siegrist, M. & Keller, C. Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal. 31, 1762–1769 (2011). 9. Tyshenko, M. G., Farhat, N., Lewis, R., Shilnikova, N. & Krewski, D. Applying a precautionary risk management strategy for regulation of nanotechnology. Int. J. Nanotech. 7, 243–264 (2010). 10. Corley, E., Scheufele, D. & Hu, Q. Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 1573–1585 (2009). 11. Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007). 12. Besley, J. C. & Nisbet, M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understand. Sci. 22, 644–659 (2011). 13. Peters, H. P. Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14102–14109 (2013). 14. Peters, H. P. et al. Interactions with the mass media. Science 321, 204–205 (2008). 15. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S. & Friedrichsmeier, A. Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: an empirical investigation. Science Comm. 36, 56–80 (2014). 16. Jensen, P. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understand. Sci. 20, 26–36 (2011). 17. Johnson, D. R., Ecklund, E. H. & Lincoln, A. E. Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Comm. 36, 81–105 (2014). 18. Roco, M. C. & Bainbridge, W. S. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Kluwer Academic, 2001). 19. Corley, E., Kim, Y. & Scheufele, D. Leading US nanoscientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 7041–7055 (2011). 20. Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471–499 (2001). 21. Ouellette, J. A. & Wood, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Psychol. Bull. 124, 54–74 (1998). 22. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Org. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 50, 179–211 (1991). 23. Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H. & Nisbet, M. Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understand. Sci. 22, 971–987 (2013). 24. Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D. & Dudo, A. Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist–media interactions. Journalism Mass Comm. Q. 86, 299–314 (2009). 25. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan 2007 (National Science and Technology Council, 2007); www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf. 26. Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J. & Gunther, A. C. The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Comm. 33, 143–166 (2011). 27. Dudo, A. Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: the case of biomedical researchers. Science Comm. 35, 476–501 (2013). 28. Smith, B. et al. COMPASS: navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001552 (2013). 29. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D. & Christian, L. M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 3rd edn (Wiley, 2008). 30. Bauer, M. W. & Jensen, P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understand. Sci. 20, 3–11 (2011).
Acknowledgements This material is based on work supported by a grant from the NSF’s NNIN. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or of the NNIN.
Author contributions A.D. and L.K. conceived and designed the survey. N.A., M.C. and A.L. curated the survey. A.D. conducted the analyses. A.D. and L.K. co-wrote the paper.
References 1. National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 Ch 7 (National Science Board, 2014); www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/ 2. Scheufele, D. A. Nano does not have a marketing problem … yet. Nano Today 2, 48 (2007). 3. Cicerone, R. Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus 6, 1–2 (2006). 4. Leshner, A. I. Outreach training needed. Science 315, 161 (2007).
844
Additional information Supplementary information is available in the online version of the paper. Reprints and permissions information is available online at www.nature.com/reprints. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.D.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators Anthony Dudo*, LeeAnn Kahlor, Niveen AbiGhannam, Allison Lazard and Ming-Ching Liang The American public remains unfamiliar with nanotechnology despite more than a decade of investment and development1. Nanoscientists have an opportunity to contribute to public conversations about their work, and its potential implications, through their engagement with lay audiences and media professionals2. Indeed, the leaderships of many professional scientific organizations have placed a renewed focus on the public communication of science, particularly in the light of drastic changes in the information landscape and the increasing politicization of many technological and scientific issues3,4. However, we have a limited understanding of nanoscientists’ perceptions and behaviours regarding their participation in public communication. Here, we report survey results that provide an examination of the public communication behaviours of nanoscientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), an integrated partnership of US research institutions designed to facilitate nanoscale research and development. Our results suggest that nanoscientists are relatively frequent public communicators who commonly associate their communication efforts with positive impacts on their professional success. We also identify a handful of characteristics that drive nanoscientists’ intentions to communicate with the public about nanotechnology. Research on the social dimensions of nanotechnology is plentiful. Among the dimensions explored are media coverage5 and public debates6 about nanotechnology, nanorelated risk perceptions among lay publics7,8 and public policy that deals with the assessment of and regulatory frameworks for nanotechnology9, as well as perceptions of these dimensions within the expert community. The perceptions focus has examined scientists’ views of nanotechnology’s potential risks and benefits, the implications of risks and benefits for regulation10 and how these experts’ views compare with those of the public11. Despite the progress made, what remains lacking is a clear sense of nanoscientists as public communicators. Scientists have traditionally perceived numerous barriers to public communication, chief among them a lack of time and internal support, concerns about inaccurate media depictions of their research and negative feedback from their colleagues12. Yet despite these apparent impediments, there is evidence that scientists writ large are more-active public communicators than is often assumed anecdotally13–15. Although this evidence may imply an encouraging trend, it is necessary to consider the specific case of nanotechnology. This is not only because research shows that scientists’ engagement activity can vary as a function of their particular discipline16,17, but also given the unique strategic emphasis that has been placed on developing nanotechnologies in ways that integrate societal considerations18. To date, only one survey-based study has assessed nanoscientists about issues related to communication. Corley et al.19 examined nanoscientists’ perceptions about the quality of media coverage
of nanotechnology research and their preferences regarding the ideal timing for public communication about new findings. They found that nanoscientists tended to view media coverage of nanotechnology as less credible and less accurate than the coverage of the general science media, and that their support for the ‘immediate’ communication of scientific findings to the public was associated with having more positive views of the media coverage of nanotechnology. They also found that nanoscientists feel a sense of responsibility to communicate their research to public audiences. Despite the insights that emerged from the Corely et al. study, there remains much to learn about nanoscientists as public communicators. Crucially, we do not yet have an empirical sense of how often nanoscientists actually engage in public communication activities, how likely they are to do so in the future and what salient factors drive nanoscientists towards—or away from—these activities. These issues, however, must be better understood if the nanotech community desires to engage with a broader array of publics in meaningful conversations about nano innovations and the risks, benefits and regulatory challenges they pose2. With this context in mind, the first goal of our study was to provide a descriptive snapshot of nanoscientists’ self-reported propensity to communicate with lay audiences. We were particularly interested in approximating the number of interactions nanoscientists have with lay audiences and the extent to which they evaluate these interactions in terms of their own professional success. We first asked nanoscientists about the amount of contact they had with media professionals and lay audiences within the five years between 2008 and 2013. As shown in Fig. 1, our results suggest that nanoscientists reported being relatively frequent public communicators. Nearly 80% of respondents indicated that they had participated in one or more direct public communication activity (for example, gave a lecture for lay people at a public meeting, talk or conference; helped to organize or conduct a public science event), and nearly half (49%) indicated that they had participated in four or more of these direct public engagement activities. Nanoscientists report slightly less contact with media professionals than with the public, but nearly two-thirds (63%) noted that they had at least one interaction with a media professional, and more than one-quarter (27%) reported that they had four or more media interactions. However, how do these scientists evaluate their public communication efforts in terms of their professional success? Quite positively, it appears—as shown in Fig. 2, three-quarters (75%) of nanoscientists agreed that his or her “public communication efforts have had a positive impact” on them professionally, with only 4% indicating disagreement with this statement. And nanoscientists evaluated their interactions with media professionals similarly, with 58% reporting agreement that his or her “contact with the media has had a positive impact” on them professionally, with only 5% noting disagreement with this statement.
Moody College of Communication, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. * e-mail: [email protected] NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
841
LETTERS
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
Per cent of respondents
60 50
Media contact Direct contact with lay audiences
40 30 20 10 0 No contact
One to three contacts Four or more contacts
Figure 1 | The amount of contact nanoscientists report having with media professionals and directly with lay audiences in 2008–2013 (five years). Contact with media professionals is shown in the light columns (n = 216) and direct contact with lay audiences is shown in the dark columns (n = 214).
The second goal of this study was to identify predictors of nanoscientists’ willingness to engage in public communication activities. To address this goal, we constructed and tested two hierarchical ordinary least-squares regression models (see Table 1). One model focused on predictors of nanoscientists’ intentions to communicate with media professionals (see Table 1, column 1), and another model focused on predictors of nanoscientists’ intentions to communicate directly to target audiences (see Table 1, column 2). This approach enabled us to see if nanoscientists are driven towards different pathways of public communication by different mechanisms. We specified our models to reflect recent empirical research that has helped identify characteristics commonly associated with scientists’ public communication efforts. We focused on behavioural intentions because they are commonly associated with actual behaviours20, particularly for behaviours that are non-habitual and occur within changing contexts21. To provide a stricter test of the endogenous variables, we also controlled for nanoscientists’ previous amount of mediated and direct communication activity. As evidenced by the adjusted R 2 values, each regression model explains a large portion of the variance in the criterion variable. (See Supplementary Table 1 for a list of the survey questions and descriptive statistics for the endogenous variables.) The hierarchical regression analyses reveal a handful of key predictive factors, many of which cut across direct and indirect engagement intentions. Consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
(a seminal social psychological theory that helps to explain and predict behavioural outcomes22) we found a robust link between attitude and behavioural intentions. Specifically, our data suggest that nanoscientists who regarded public communication as important for the welfare of society were more likely to intend to engage in direct and mediated public communication activities. This finding echoes recent studies that have unearthed the same relationship among aggregate samples of research scientists across disciplines23. We found no relationship, however, between another dimension of attitude—nanoscientists’ personal enjoyment of public communication—and their willingness to participate. Although evidence of personal enjoyment’s influence has been found among biomedical researchers24, it appears that nanoscientists’ intentions to engage stem from a belief that engagement efforts can impact society positively. This belief, in part, may reflect the considerable focus the US government has placed on the exploration and promotion of the ethical aspects of nanotechnology25. Our results also revealed a robust relationship between nanoscientists’ orientations towards media and publicity with their likelihood of future engagement in public communication activities. That is, nanoscientists who perceived professional benefits from generating publicity about their research (for example, helping to attract research funding and quality students, helping to generate more frequent citations of their work) were more willing to participate in direct and mediated public communication. Similarly, nanoscientists who were more motivated to be responsive and helpful to publicity efforts (for example, cooperating with journalists, helping institutional media relations efforts) were also more likely to have intentions to engage. This finding highlights a media sensitivity among nanoscientists that dovetails with a broader trend among scientists to value the professional importance of media visibility13,26. We also found that nanoscientists’ potential involvement in engagement activities is predicated on institutional media policies, such that nanoscientists with autonomy to talk to media professionals are more likely to intend to do so. This result suggests that institutional efforts to expand external relations structures and policies (for example, through media relations offices) may potentially be undermined if nanoscientists perceive that these efforts constrain their individual freedom to respond to media inquiries or seek publicity related to their research. This creates an interesting need to balance (1) the willingness of these researchers to have a voice in the conversation with (2) an institution’s need to make sure these conversations are happening.
80 70
"My contact with the media has had a positive impact on me professionally."
Per cent of respondents
60
"My public communication efforts have had a positive impact on me professionally."
50 40 30 20 10 0 Strongly disagree or disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Strongly agree or agree
Figure 2 | Nanoscientists’ evaluations of the professional impacts of their contact with media professionals and direct public engagement efforts. The impact of contact with media professionals is shown in the light columns (n = 134) and the impact of direct public engagement efforts is shown in the dark columns (n = 168). 842
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
Table 1 | Predicting nanoscientists’ intention to engage in public communication. Dependent variables: two pathways of public communication Block 1: Control variables Age Gender (male coded high) Status Previous behaviour (context-specific) Incremental R 2 (%) Block 2: Media consumption and use Consumption of online-only media for science news Consumption of traditional media for science news Use of online tools to communicate about science Incremental R 2 (%) Block 3: Theory of planned behaviour Perceived behavioural controls Communication self-efficacy Communication training Attitudes Personal enjoyment Importance for society Norms Negative external Positive external Incremental R 2 (%) Block 4: Media orientations Presumed media influence Media motivations Communication autonomy Medialization of colleagues Medialization of self Incremental R 2 (%) R 2 (%) Adjusted R 2 (%) ANOVA
Engagement via media
Direct engagement
–0.07 0.04 –0.07 0.19** 12.9***
–0.13 0.03 –0.03 0.26*** 16.0***
0.03
0.03
–0.02
–0.03
0.17*
–0.01
6.6***
2.8
0.07 –0.02
0.12* 0.09
–0.01 0.24***
0.07 0.18**
–0.01 0.07 12.6***
0.09 0.04 16.1***
0.19** 0.17** 0.13* 0.11 –0.07 8.9*** 41.1 35.7 F 18,215, 7.63***
0.18** 0.20** 0.12* 0.02 0.01 8.3*** 43.3 38.1 F 18,215, 8.34***
This table depicts the results of hierarchical ordinary least-squares regression analysis in which the independent variables were entered in blocks into the regression equation according to their assumed causal order. Each column depicts the final model for each of two dependent variables, showing which independent variables are significantly related to each dependent variable while controlling for the effects of all the other independent variables in the model. The cell entries in each column are standardized regression coefficients. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Our analyses also identify characteristics germane to one particular pathway of public communication. Nanoscientists who spend more time using online tools (for example, microblogs, social networks, forums) to communicate about science were more likely to express a willingness to participate in public communication through media professionals. This result seems logical; nanoscientists who spend more time communicating about science online have greater opportunity to encounter and interact with media professionals on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook than that of their colleagues who limit or avoid this activity. If these encounters are mostly positive, it is not surprising to expect that these nanoscientists were more interested in engaging with media professionals in the future about their work. It is interesting that there was not a relationship between intentions to communicate directly with the public and the use of new media tools. This suggests that there may be a perception among nanoscientists that social media tools are for reaching journalists and bloggers more than for reaching laypersons, per se. This perception is curious, however, given that these online tools can also enable nanoscientists to communicate in ways that bypass journalist intermediaries. This result highlights the need for future research on the role new media tools play in nanoscientists’ public communication perceptions and behaviours.
LETTERS
Our findings also suggest that nanoscientists’ intentions to participate in direct public communication were spurred by the level of interpersonal communication skill (that is, communication self-efficacy) they assign to themselves. Although this result is consistent with theory and previous communication research focused on biomedical researchers27, nanoscientists’ perceived interpersonal communication acumen is not directly associated with their intentions to participate in mediated communication. Nanoscientists may perceive direct communication environments as spaces in which their personal communication skills can exert larger impacts on the nature and outcomes of the engagement activity. Our multivariate findings emerged after statistically controlling for the effect of nanoscientists’ previous behaviour. Unsurprisingly, nanoscientists who had engaged in public communication activities were more likely to express intentions to engage in these activities in the future. Yet this relationship did not nullify the effects of the other endogenous variables. As such, we can be that much more confident in the veracity of the results and the implications they pose. Overall, we unearthed some clear insights about nanoscientists as public communicators, each of which has important implications for expert–public communications about nanotechnology. First, our results indicate that nanoscientists, similar to researchers in some other disciplines14, are currently involved in public engagement activities, and with some frequency. Furthermore, a large portion of the NNIN-affiliated researchers we surveyed have not only engaged in public communication activity, but they also regard their outreach efforts as bolstering their careers, and they intend to partake in public communication efforts in the future. Second, our findings identified several individual-level variables that are strongly related to one’s likelihood of engaging in public communication in the future. For example, nanoscientists seem driven towards this behaviour, in part, as a result of a sense of social responsibility to communicate their research to public audiences. This finding suggests that the obligation nanoscientists feel to communicate their research findings to the public19 probably translates into behaviour. Also, public communication about nanoscience is associated strongly with the perception of the self as an effective communicator and as one who demonstrates a heightened understanding of and sensitivity to the media and publicity’s role in nanoscience. In closing, nanoscientists have an opportunity to contribute to public conversations about their work and its potential implications through their communications with lay audiences and the media. Understanding nanoscientists’ baseline engagement behaviours and the factors associated with these behaviours can help nanotech communities improve their engagement efforts. Our results suggest that nanoscientists’ value such efforts, both broadly and in terms of their own professional development. Nanoscientists do not begrudge outreach; they regard it as gratifying and necessary. Within the broader context of calls for the improvement and proliferation of science communication training4,28, parties interested in strengthening dialogues between nanotech communities and the public should be encouraged by these results to invest further in the public communication of nanoscience. Specifically, our results imply that communication training for nanoscientists should aim to bolster their communication capacity, familiarity with media and publicity, and the perception that their research is relevant to the public and has important societal implications.
Methods The data source for this study was a mixed-mode, multiwave survey of nanotechnology scientists and engineers. The survey was administered to nanotechnology scientists and engineers affiliated with the NSF’s NNIN. The NNIN is an integrated partnership of 14 US-based nanotechnology research facilities (listed below). In 2012, the NNIN provided the study principle investigators (PIs) with a list that contained the names and contact information for roughly one-sixth of its total 6,054 members. This list, which was sorted by NNIN staff to include randomly chosen individuals from each of the 14 member institutions, consisted of 1,009 members. Between May and June 2013, our research team cleaned this contact list to
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
843
LETTERS
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
identify and remove individuals no longer located at the NNIN-affiliated institutions, which resulted in a contact list of 994 nanoscientists and engineers. Using Qualtrics software, we then conducted a four-wave online survey following the Tailored Design Method29. To help bolster the rate of responses, we offered a $10 e-gift card to Amazon.com for the first 85 respondents (respondents could opt out of the e-gift card offer). Between the second- and third-online survey waves, we also attempted to contact all of the non-responders by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted from July to October 2013. The survey yielded data from 216 completed questionnaires, a response rate of 25% after the contact list was adjusted to 878 to account for hard and soft bounce backs. This response rate is consistent with response rates associated with surveys of expert communities. SPSS v.21 was used to generate the descriptive and multivariate analyses reported in this study. Supplementary Table 1 contains a full list of the survey questions and the corresponding indices used in analyses. Surveying researchers affiliated with the NNIN centres enabled us to access scientists and engineers entrenched in cutting-edge nanoscale research. Specifically, we were able to administer our survey to respondents who reported actively participating in nanoscience research across a range of subdisciplines and in varying roles. Of the sample, 89% reported ‘research’ as their primary job responsibility. Respondents also reported that their primary research ranged across at least ten subdisciplines, among them engineering (n = 103), materials (n = 78), biomedicine (n = 52), devices (n = 50), photonics (n = 42), physics (n = 34) and energy (n = 31); respondents could report more than one primary subdiscipline. The sample also exhibited variance across career level (for example, 30% reported being ‘group leaders or PIs’ and 59% reported having ‘no active management role’) and was relatively young (M = 34.9 years, standard deviation = 10.6 years). This latter characteristic is a welcome difference from the majority of scientist surveys that have reported results based predominantly on samples of older, senior-level scientists12,14. The sample also carries limitations. There is a risk of non-response bias such that our respondents may have been nanoscientists who were predisposed towards public communication. Broadly, this phenomenon is a commonplace challenge when studying scientist communicators30, which is why we supplemented our online survey with personal phone calls and offered a modest incentive to participants. It is also possible that our sampling of NNIN-affiliated researchers may have led to an overestimation of nanoscientists’ level of engagement given the broader impact requirements of NSF-funded research. As noted above, however, we reached nanoscientists working across career levels, which suggests that, although PIs might be assumed to be involved directly with addressing broader impacts in their research projects, it is not a given that this experience is consistent across respondents, the majority of whom have no active management role. Furthermore, the NNIN has an education outreach programme focused primarily on teachers and students, but, as far as we are aware, it has no broad mandate that requires researchers at its affiliated centres to participate in public communication. It is also true that our sampling of researchers at NNIN-affiliated facilities precluded us from sampling nanoscientists employed at other productive research universities. Although we have no reason to suspect that their responses would be systematically different to those within our sample, we recommend that future research on nanoscientists as public communicators employs varied sampling procedures. Overall, we believe the strengths of our sample vastly outweigh its limitations. The NNIN-affiliated nanotechnology research centres include the Cornell Nanoscale Facility at Cornell University, the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility at Stanford University, the Lurie Nanofabrication Facility at the University of Michigan, the Nanotechnology Research Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Center for Nanotechnology at the University of Washington, the Penn State Nanofabrication Facility at Pennsylvania State University, Nanotech at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Nanofabrication Center at the University of Minnesota, the Microelectronics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin, the Center for Nanoscale Systems at Harvard University, the Howard Nanoscale Science and Engineering Facility at Howard University, the Nano Research Facility at Washington University at St Louis, Nanofab at Arizona State University and the Colorado Nanofabrication Laboratory at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Received 1 February 2014; accepted 8 August 2014; published online 14 September 2014
DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2014.194
5. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S. & Scheufele, D. A. The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Comm. Q. 88, 55–75 (2011). 6. Berube, D. M. Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 23–37 (2008). 7. Pidgeon, N., Harthom, B. H., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009). 8. Siegrist, M. & Keller, C. Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal. 31, 1762–1769 (2011). 9. Tyshenko, M. G., Farhat, N., Lewis, R., Shilnikova, N. & Krewski, D. Applying a precautionary risk management strategy for regulation of nanotechnology. Int. J. Nanotech. 7, 243–264 (2010). 10. Corley, E., Scheufele, D. & Hu, Q. Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 1573–1585 (2009). 11. Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007). 12. Besley, J. C. & Nisbet, M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understand. Sci. 22, 644–659 (2011). 13. Peters, H. P. Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14102–14109 (2013). 14. Peters, H. P. et al. Interactions with the mass media. Science 321, 204–205 (2008). 15. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S. & Friedrichsmeier, A. Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: an empirical investigation. Science Comm. 36, 56–80 (2014). 16. Jensen, P. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understand. Sci. 20, 26–36 (2011). 17. Johnson, D. R., Ecklund, E. H. & Lincoln, A. E. Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Comm. 36, 81–105 (2014). 18. Roco, M. C. & Bainbridge, W. S. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Kluwer Academic, 2001). 19. Corley, E., Kim, Y. & Scheufele, D. Leading US nanoscientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 7041–7055 (2011). 20. Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471–499 (2001). 21. Ouellette, J. A. & Wood, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Psychol. Bull. 124, 54–74 (1998). 22. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Org. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 50, 179–211 (1991). 23. Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H. & Nisbet, M. Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understand. Sci. 22, 971–987 (2013). 24. Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D. & Dudo, A. Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist–media interactions. Journalism Mass Comm. Q. 86, 299–314 (2009). 25. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan 2007 (National Science and Technology Council, 2007); www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf. 26. Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J. & Gunther, A. C. The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Comm. 33, 143–166 (2011). 27. Dudo, A. Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: the case of biomedical researchers. Science Comm. 35, 476–501 (2013). 28. Smith, B. et al. COMPASS: navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001552 (2013). 29. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D. & Christian, L. M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 3rd edn (Wiley, 2008). 30. Bauer, M. W. & Jensen, P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understand. Sci. 20, 3–11 (2011).
Acknowledgements This material is based on work supported by a grant from the NSF’s NNIN. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or of the NNIN.
Author contributions A.D. and L.K. conceived and designed the survey. N.A., M.C. and A.L. curated the survey. A.D. conducted the analyses. A.D. and L.K. co-wrote the paper.
References 1. National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 Ch 7 (National Science Board, 2014); www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/ 2. Scheufele, D. A. Nano does not have a marketing problem … yet. Nano Today 2, 48 (2007). 3. Cicerone, R. Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus 6, 1–2 (2006). 4. Leshner, A. I. Outreach training needed. Science 315, 161 (2007).
844
Additional information Supplementary information is available in the online version of the paper. Reprints and permissions information is available online at www.nature.com/reprints. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to A.D.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY | VOL 9 | OCTOBER 2014 | www.nature.com/naturenanotechnology
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
