Environmental scientists’ support for public engagement strategy development is predicted by a range of factors, but mostly perceived benefits

References

• Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aurbach, E. L., Prater, K. E., Patterson, B., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2018). Half-life your message: A quick, flexible tool for message discovery. Science Communication, 40(5), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018781917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Bao, L., Calice, M. N., Brossard, D., Beets, B., Scheufele, D. A., & Rose, K. M. (2023). How institutional factors at US land-grant universities impact scientists’ public scholarship. Public Understanding of Science, 32(2), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221094413
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., Hart, D., Mannix, H., McGreavy, B., Parris, A., Posner, S., Robinson, C., Ryan, M., & Leith, P. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, N., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Besley, J. C. (2019). Chapter 1: Scientists, trainers, and the strategic communication of science. In Todd P. Newman (Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 9–31). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., & Dudo, A. (2022a). Perceived successfulness of public engagement at research institutes. In M. Entradas, & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Public communication of research universities (pp. 79–96). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., & Dudo, A. (2022b). Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis, 42(11), 2584–2592. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Garlick, S., Fallon Lambert, K., & Tiffany, L. A. (2021a). The role of communication professionals in fostering a culture of public engagement. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 11(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.1943763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, John C., Dudo, Anthony, & Yuan, Shupei. (2018a). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, John C., Dudo, Anthony, Yuan, Shupei, & Lawrence, Frank. (2018b). Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, John C., Newman, Todd P., Dudo, Anthony, & Tiffany, Leigh Anne. (2020). Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520950671
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, John C., Newman, Todd P., Dudo, Anthony, & Tiffany, Leigh Anne. (2021b). American Scientists’ Willingness to Use Different Communication Tactics. Science Communication, 43(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211011159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, John C., O’Hara, Kathryn, Dudo, Anthony, & Capraro, Valerio. (2019). Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0224039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, John C., & Schweizer, Pia-Johanna. (2022c). Risk Researchers’ Views About the Goal of Trying to Ensure Policymakers Consider Scientific Evidence. Risk Analysis, 42(4), 786–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.v42.4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One, 11(2), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Besley, J., Kahlor, L. A., Koh, H., Copple, J., & Yuan, S. (2018). Microbiologists' public engagement views and behaviors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Yuan, S. (2021). Science communication training in North America: Preparing whom to do what with what effect? Science Communication, 43(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entradas, M. (2022). Public communication at research universities: Moving towards (de)centralised communication of science? Public Understanding of Science, 31(5), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211058309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entradas, M., & Bauer, M. M. (2017). Mobilisation for public engagement: Benchmarking the practices of research institutes. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7), 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516633834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entradas, M., Bauer, M. W., O'Muircheartaigh, C., Marcinkowski, F., Okamura, A., Pellegrini, G., Besley, J. C., Massarani, L., Russo, P., Dudo, A., Saracino, B., Silva, C., Kano, K., Amorim, L., Bucchi, M., Suerdem, A., Oyama, T., & Li, Y.-Y. (2020). Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLoS One, 15(7), e0235191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M. (2009). An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 215–234). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• France, B., Cridge, B., & Fogg-Rogers, L. (2017). Organisational culture and its role in developing a sustainable science communication platform. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1106025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In A. Zerfass, B. Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research (pp. 327–347). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90918-9_22
   Google Scholar
• Hall, M. K., Foutz, S., & Mayhew, M. A. (2013). Design and impacts of a youth-directed Café Scientifique Program. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3(2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2012.715780
   Google Scholar
• Hallahan, K. (2015). Organizational goals and communication objectives in strategic communication. In Derina Holtzhausen & Ansgar Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 244–266).
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00281.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendricks, R., & Fond, M. (2023). Basic and beyond: Next steps on the path to effective and meaningful science communication. https://scipep.org/wp-content/uploads/SciPEP_Report_Basic-and-beyond_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS One, 10(10), e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., Goh, T. J., & Chuah, A. S. F. (2022). Perceived behavioral control as a moderator: Scientists’ attitude, norms, and willingness to engage the public. PLoS One, 17(10), e0275643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hon, L. C. (1998). Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(2), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1002_02
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, E. A., & Gerber, A. (2020). Evidence-based science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koivumäki, K., & Wilkinson, C. (2020). Exploring the intersections: Researchers and communication professionals’ perspectives on the organizational role of science communication. Journal of Communication Management, 24(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2019-0072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton, R., Conner, M., & Parker, D. (2007). Beyond cognition: Predicting health risk behaviors from instrumental and affective beliefs. Health Psychology, 26(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.3.259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LTER Network. (2023). National science foundation LTER network. Retrieved July 18 from https://lternet.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Malone, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). The human brand: How we relate to people, products, and companies. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Conde, S. (2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect? The Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-16.2016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (pp. 67–96). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterman, K., Garlick, S., Besley, J., Allen, S., Fallon Lambert, K., Nadkarni, N. M., Rosin, M. S., Weber, C., Weiss, M., & Wong, J. (2021). Boundary spanners and thinking partners: Adapting and expanding the research-practice partnership literature for public engagement with science (PES). Journal of Science Communication, 20(7), N01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20070801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Springer-Verlang.
   Google Scholar
• Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, S. H., Goodwin, J., & Dahlstrom, M. F. (2018). Ethics and practice in science communication. The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson Evia, J., Peterman, K., Cloyd, E., & Besley, J. (2018). Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1377852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers, S., Wang, Z., Maras, M. A., Burgoyne, S., Balakrishnan, B., Stemmle, J., & Schultz, J. C. (2018). Decoding science: Development and evaluation of a science communication training program using a triangulated framework. Science Communication, 40(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017747285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, K. M., Markowitz, E. M., & Brossard, D. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3), 1274–1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumelt, R. P. (2011). Good strategy, bad strategy: The difference and why it matters. Crown Business.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M. S., & Fähnrich, B. (2020). Communicating science in organizational contexts: Toward an “organizational turn” in science communication research. Journal of Communication Management, 24(3), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2020-0034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D., Snyder, L., & Hayes, A. F. (2006). Thinking and modeling at multiple levels: The potential contribution of multilevel modeling to communication theory and research. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00292.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. D. (2021). Strategic planning for public relations. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stylinski, C., Storksdieck, M., Canzoneri, N., Klein, E., & Johnson, A. (2018). Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaker, J., Howe, P., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019). Perceived collective efficacy and trust in government influence public engagement with climate change-related water conservation policies. Environmental Communication, 13(5), 681–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1438302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiffany, L. A., Hautea, S., Besley, J. C., Newman, T. P., & Dudo, A. (2022). Effect of context on scientists’ normative beliefs. Science Communication, 44(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211048186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar