What are you saying? Challenges and opportunities for increasing visibility and understanding of indoor microbiological research

This study identifies challenges that microbiologists who study built environments face in their efforts to increase public understanding and visibility associated with their research. More specifically, it offers an empirical assessment of these scientists’ perceptions of what people need to understand – specific research terms and concepts are noted – and what needs to be considered when communicating with key decision-makers in agencies that fund research. The results of semi-structured interviews with 79 U.S. scientists highlight several themes, terms, and concepts that require improved understanding among laypeople, policy-makers, and funding agencies. The results also imply that these scientists are willing communicators who are often called upon by laypeople to answer questions about microbial issues and research related to built environments. Suggestions are made to aid this research community’s future public communication efforts.

[1]  Gillian Pearson,et al.  Scientists and the public understanding of science , 1997 .

[2]  Fritz Heider,et al.  Social perception and phenomenal causality. , 1944 .

[3]  L. Kahlor,et al.  Communicating science: New agendas in communication , 2009 .

[4]  C. Mitchell,et al.  Improving Indoor Environmental Quality for Public Health: Impediments and Policy Recommendations , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[5]  David E. Jacobs,et al.  Linking Public Health, Housing, and Indoor Environmental Policy: Successes and Challenges at Local and Federal Agencies in the United States , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  Hans Peter Peters,et al.  Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  L. Kahlor.  PRISM: A Planned Risk Information Seeking Model , 2010, Health communication.

[8]  Robert A. Logan,et al.  Science Mass Communication , 2001 .

[9]  J. Rouquier,et al.  Scientists who engage with society perform better academically , 2008, 0810.4672.

[10]  M. Weigold,et al.  Communicating Science , 2001 .

[11]  Pierre Laszlo.  Communicating Science: A Practical Guide , 2006 .

[12]  Steven Miller,et al.  Can Science Communication Workshops Train Scientists for Reflexive Public Engagement? , 2009 .

[13]  Thomas Llewelyn Webb,et al.  What Factors Predict Scientists' Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? , 2007 .

[14]  D. Lach,et al.  The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: a case study from the American west , 2004 .

[15]  Chris Quigg,et al.  The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science , 2004 .

[16]  N. Allum,et al.  Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes , 2004 .

[17]  A. Dudo.  Toward a Model of Scientists’ Public Communication Activity , 2013 .

[18]  D. Watson,et al.  The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality divergent?. , 1982 .

[19]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  How scientists view the public, the media and the political process , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[20]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Socialization or Rewards? Predicting U.S. Scientist-Media Interactions , 2009 .

[21]  Jennings Bryant,et al.  Theory and Research in Mass Communication , 2004 .

[22]  J. Besley,et al.  Predicting scientists’ participation in public life , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[23]  Dominique Brossard and Bruce V . Lewenstein.  A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory , 2009 .

[24]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. , 2009, American journal of botany.

[25]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  The mobilization of scientists for public engagement , 2011 .