Toward a Model for Scientists' Public Communication Activity

The "communication gap" between scientists and the public is a topic of growing relevance. Closing this gap, in part, means getting scientists and non-scientists to interface more regularly—either in person or indirectly through media—and requires that social scientists develop a more nuanced understanding of the conditions that drive scientists to popularize their research. The main goal of this study is to identify key factors and processes that lead scientists to engage in the public communication of science and technology (PCST). Using a unique data set, this study constructs and tests a model that illuminates pathways—both direct and indirect—that lead scientists to partake in PCST. The data were collected via a multi-wave mail survey of biomedical scientists based in the U.S. A total of 363 scientists completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 34.5%. Structural equation modeling was used to test a conceptual model of scientists’ PCST activity. The conceptual model—formulated via the application of relevant social psychological theories of behavior change—accounts for numerous multi-level factors likely to be salient predictors of scientists’ PCST activity. These factors include organizational/demographic characteristics (e.g., professional status, gender, and organizational autonomy), media consumption (e.g., exposure to general and science-related TV programming, print journalism, Internet, etc.), and individual psychological/normative orientations (e.g., attitude toward PCST, perceived behavioral controls related to PCST, various normative perceptions regarding PCST, and level of “medialization”). The final structural model fits the data quite well (x²= 22.9, df = 13, p = .043; CFI = 0.97; TLI= 0.94; RMSEA = 0.046), accounts for 33% of the variance in scientists’ PCST activity, and reveals numerous direct and indirect paths of influence. For example, scientists with more positive attitudes toward PCST (B = .19), higher perceived communication self-efficacy (B = .13), and more formal communication training (B = .14) are significantly more likely to engage in PCST. Beyond these direct effects, numerous endogenous factors have significant indirect relationships with the dependent variable. For example, scientists who consume more print media are also more likely to personally enjoy PCST (B = .12) and, in turn, to engage in a greater amount of PCST. In sum, this study identifies key factors that contribute to scientists’ PCST activity. Identifying these factors and building a process-oriented model that charts their contributions to scientists’ PCST behavior makes a clear contribution to the scholarly pursuit of this issue. The findings are equally instructive to strategic efforts to forge connections between scientists and the public as they can be used to guide organizational resource investments related to science communication.