Science communication scholars use more and more segmentation analyses: Can we take them to the next level?

Science communication scholars are publishing more and more segmentation analyses as they further our understanding of different audiences and their characteristics. They follow different aims, are therefore difficult to compare and do not lend themselves to more generalisable and theoretical knowledge production. Our field has the potential to follow a demand for more systematic efforts by taking advantage of our high-quality representative data sets focusing on public perceptions of science. Beforehand, however, science communication scholars using segmentation analyses have to identify common goals and overcome a number of hurdles concerning variable selection, methodological approaches, and transparency. Ultimately, a collaborative and systematic application of segmentation analyses could result in truly relevant insights for our field.

[1]  K. Okamura.  Dynamic development of public attitudes towards science policymaking , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[2]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  A Short Survey Instrument to Segment Populations According to Their Attitudes Toward Science. Scale Development, Optimization and Assessment , 2018 .

[3]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Identifying Like-Minded Audiences for Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development , 2011, PloS one.

[4]  J. Besley.  The State of Public Opinion Research on Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology , 2013 .

[5]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[6]  A. Leiserowitz,et al.  Global Warming’s “Six Americas Short Survey”: Audience Segmentation of Climate Change Views Using a Four Question Instrument , 2018, Environmental Communication.

[7]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science—Discourse and Comparative Evidence , 2009 .

[8]  Frieder Neunhoeffer,et al.  Between enthusiasm and refusal : A cluster analysis on consumer types and attitudes towards peer-to-peer sharing , 2018 .

[9]  J. Besley.  Audiences for Science Communication in the United States , 2018 .

[10]  D. Hine,et al.  Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations , 2014 .

[11]  B. Hives,et al.  Researching multiple publics through latent profile analysis: Similarities and differences in science and technology attitudes in China, Japan, South Korea and the United States , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[12]  M. Hurtado,et al.  Political dimensions of scientific culture: Highlights from the Ibero-American survey on the social perception of science and scientific culture , 2012 .

[13]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Who wants to be a citizen scientist? Identifying the potential of citizen science and target segments in Switzerland , 2019, Public understanding of science.

[14]  D. Hine,et al.  Increasing belief but issue fatigue: Changes in Australian Household Climate Change Segments between 2011 and 2016 , 2018, PloS one.

[15]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Audience Segments in Environmental and Science Communication: Recent Findings and Future Perspectives , 2018, Environmental Communication.

[16]  Minoru Nakayama,et al.  A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[17]  M. Cámara,et al.  Attitudes towards science among Spanish citizens: The case of critical engagers , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[18]  A comparison between attitudes to climate change in Australia and the United States , 2013 .

[19]  J. Swim,et al.  From Alarmed to Dismissive of Climate Change: A Single Item Assessment of Individual Differences in Concern and Issue Involvement , 2017 .

[20]  S. Linden.  The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model , 2015 .

[21]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Understanding Public Opinion in Debates over Biomedical Research: Looking beyond Political Partisanship to Focus on Beliefs about Science and Society , 2014, PloS one.

[22]  Claude S. Fischer,et al.  An inductive typology of egocentric networks , 2016, Soc. Networks.

[23]  Lars Guenther,et al.  “Science is Everywhere, but No One Knows It”: Assessing the Cultural Distance to Science of Rural South African Publics , 2018 .

[24]  Lars Guenther,et al.  Promises and reservations towards science and technology among South African publics: A culture-sensitive approach , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[25]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Beyond the Choir? The Need to Understand Multiple Publics for Science , 2018, Environmental Communication.