Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication

In an era of large-scale science-related challenges and rapid advancements in groundbreaking science with major societal implications, communicating about science is critical. The profile of science communication has increased over the last few decades, with multiple sectors calling for such activities. As scientists respond to calls for public-facing communication, we need to evaluate where the scientific community stands. We conducted a unique census of science faculty at land-grant universities across the United States intended to spur the next generation of science communicators and research. Despite scientists’ strong approval of science communication efforts, potential areas of tension, attributable to lack of institutional support and confidence in communication skills, constrain these efforts.

Often following norms set by colleagues and their institutions, faculty members have traditionally viewed science communication as a peripheral component of their jobs (6). However, there are signs of a cultural shift taking place within academia regarding perceptions and pursuits of public engagement activities (7) as science faculty and their institutions continue to grapple with their involvement in societal debates about science issues and the use of science in policy decision making (8). Coupled with a burgeoning movement within public universities to recommit to service aspects of faculty expectations (8), we may be entering a period of significant reorientation regarding the relationship between academic scientists' careers and the pursuit of science communication.
A growing body of research in recent years has addressed science communication and academic scientists' involvement, including factors that promote or inhibit these activities (9)(10)(11). Past empirical research on scientists' public communication efforts has primarily relied on small-or medium-sized convenience or discipline-specific samples of researchers, often recruited through disciplinary or professional organizations. To advance the field, we conducted a large-scale census survey of science faculty at 73 colleges and universities within the US land-grant system endowed by the 1862 and 1890 Morrill Acts. As recipients of public funding steeped in founding traditions of public service and impact (12), land-grant universities should be strong supporters of science communication and encourage direct and meaningful engagement with their constituents and society.
Using university websites, a research team compiled contact information for all 100,000+ land-grant faculty and invited them to participate in a science communication survey conducted from May to June 2018, yielding 10,706 completed surveys and a 14.1% response rate (RR2). The project was reviewed and exempted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (ID: 2018-0432). We initially contacted faculty at 73 institutions, but only 46 institutions were included in the final sample after removing those with fewer than 20 completed surveys or that were not representative of their faculty gender distribution. Narrowed to tenured and tenure-track social, life, and physical scientists, our results use a final sample of 6,242 scientists. The census-type approach avoids convenience sampling issues plaguing prior studies in the field, although selfselection into the study (e.g., active communicators may be more inclined to respond) remains a known challenge. A response wave comparison suggests we reached different segments of the faculty population, based on tenure status and outreach involvement, with less active communicators responding later in the survey period. Although census methodology does not require formal testing, we include P values to assist interpretation of findings.
Our results reveal a complex landscape of public communication among land-grant science faculty. Faculty reported high levels of activity in public outreach: 98.3% of respondents participated in at least one science communication activity over the year, with 80.6% of respondents engaged in adult-focused activities (e.g., science cafés or deliberative forums). A majority (53.2%) indicated that pursuing public engagement activities is highly important to them, with younger science faculty (based on academic age, or years since PhD) placing significantly higher importance on such activities (Fig. 1B).
Faculty's reported participation and importance might suggest a supportive climate for science communication, yet their perceptions of the culture surrounding public engagement at their institutions expose areas of tension. Asked about the importance placed on engagement by key university-related groups, faculty indicated they received inconsistent messages from different sectors and leaders (Fig. 1A). Under one-half of respondents (43.0%) thought high-level administrators had made public engagement a priority at their institutions, contributing to a perceived lack of institutional support. More immediately, faculty respondents believed public engagement was not important to their colleagues (23.0% thought it was highly important), and only around one-half (55.6%) thought scientists who participate in science communication are well regarded by their peers, leaving a substantial 37.4% undecided about their high engagement peers. Critically, faculty did not believe that engagement was important to residents of their community (only 36.8% thought it was highly important). Viewing public engagement as relatively unimportant to colleagues, certain university leaders, and state residents may suppress engagement efforts, or at least scientists' willingness to share their involvement.

A B
Our results suggest land-grant university scientists' own attitudes toward public communication are broadly supportive of more inclusive and productive efforts in this domain, with even higher levels of support among the next generation of scientists. Scientists' views of whether their peers, university administrators, and constituents value science communication, however, suggest these efforts occur despite a perceived lack of institutional and collegial support. That many faculty feel unsupported at these institutions indicates scientists, and perhaps especially younger faculty, face an uphill battle in pursuing the critical work called for by so many.
Scientists' public communication efforts will play an increasingly important role in shaping perceptions and support for science and public institutions, particularly as scientists and universities redefine and defend their roles in American society. To achieve this, scientists participating in communication efforts require support from their institutions and communities. In this changing environment, a small but increasing recognition for service and public engagement exists within the academic community (14). As vitally important as institutional support, scientists must consider the science of science communication and use insights from the social sciences to inform sound science communication practices (1). Future research should address how institutions can support and encourage faculty communication efforts. Science communication impacts its participants-scientists and nonexpert members of the public-but as these efforts expand, our expectations of the purposes, outcomes, and rewards should evolve, both in the public sphere and the halls of academia. Science and the world change rapidly, and so must we.
Data Availability. Additional information on the survey protocol and robustness checks are in the project report (https://uwmadison. box.com/v/LGProject-MethodsReport). The data are available in SI Appendix.