Indoor Environment (IE) Research Outside the Lab: Establishing a Benchmark of IE Researchers as Public Communicators

It is estimated that people in the developed world spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoor. Relative to outdoor ecosystems, however, minimal funding and research addresses the microbial ecology of built environments. With support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, this study focuses on the communication dynamics underlying the scientific field of indoor environment (IE) research, surmising that understanding these dynamics can assist efforts to prioritize, regulate, and fund this increasingly salient field. We interviewed IE researchers to identify what they define as essential knowledge in their research, and to understand their perceptions and behaviors toward the public communication of their work.

In 2011, we conducted telephone interviews with U.S. indoor environment experts (e.g. microbiologists, epidemiologists, biochemists, pathologists, environmental engineers, etc. whose primary research focuses on IE microbiology) from academia (71%), government and the U.S. army (16%), and private industry (13%). Our sample was identified from a content analysis recently published indoor environment research. Seventy-nine researchers participated in our study (response rate of 33%).

IE researchers identify four primary themes as essential knowledge for lay audiences and decision makers: agents, measures, outcomes, and building structures. However, they focus on slightly different information needs for these two audiences. For example, IE researchers highlight knowledge deficits focused on policy (e.g., regulations, building design codes, funding) among decision makers, while highlighting knowledge deficits focused on specific scientific concepts (e.g. bacteria, microbes, and biological agents) among lay public audiences. The majority of our IE scientists regard themselves as frequent and facile communicators, such that more than three-quarters of the sample view themselves as information sources for laypeople. This runs counter to assumptions that scientists do not engage the public about their work. Also, the majority of researchers indicate they find it easy to explain their research to lay audiences (66%) and are known for making their research understandable (68%). Additionally, most of the researchers who have no difficulty explaining their research to the public (73%) attribute communication success to their own skills and communication failures to audience incapacity.

This study helps establish a benchmark for essential IE knowledge as defined by IE researchers and provides a snapshot of IE researchers as public communicators. We identify themes that need to be better communicated to aid in the prioritization of IE research. We also find IE scientists to be willing communicators who, if better trained in communication, may be able to actively help improve the profile of this nascent research area. This baseline data can help inform and improve the strategic communication of IE research to external audiences including decision-makers and the general public.