Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Trends in Public Engagement Mechanisms and Attitudes
Pages 13-20

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 13...
... It ended up scrutinizing that article in a way that hadn't been possible with the traditional view of peer reviewing. Dominique Brossard The exploration of historical and contemporary trends in public engagement emerged as a second major theme in the workshop, with discussions of recent scholarship as well as journalists' and scientists' perceptions.
From page 14...
... Momentum for the broader communication of science began to build in the 1970s and 1980s, Lewenstein contended, citing WGBH's creation of the science television series NOVA, the launch of several popular scientific periodicals, and the establishment of mass media fellowships by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, all of which occurred during those 2 decades. Burris also highlighted the importance of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA in 1975, which was covered by Rolling Stone Magazine.
From page 15...
... The Cornell survey led to new incentives. In particular, he said, "our biotech center established a $10,000 research support prize for the group within the center that was doing the best job of presenting at a public symposium." Looking forward, Burris predicted that, although the mechanisms will change to some extent, the popular media will continue to play an integral role in the overall enterprise of science communication.
From page 16...
... "This is powerful, mean censorship," Foxhall asserted, "that is now a cultural norm." She cited Gary Pruitt, president of the Associated Press, for pointing out that nonofficial news sources are critical to the free press and for holding government accountable. Without access to federal scientists who are closest to the story, Foxhall argued, reporters will hear only the official stories from the official sources, and citizens will know only what the government wants them to know.
From page 17...
... Scientists are increasingly using social media to communicate directly with the public; and the public -- not the media -- can decide what goes viral. To examine scientists' engagement through social media, Brossard and her colleagues conducted a survey of 254 tenure-track faculty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
From page 18...
... ce: e PEER REVIEW W -- STILL THE COIN OF THE REALM C R Diane Harley of the Unive ersity of Califor rnia, Berkeley, gave workshop attendees an g p overv view of her rese earch on scholars' decisions re egarding when and how to com a mmunicate the reesults of their work. Harley distinguished betw ween archival publication (a fi p inal, peerreview product)
From page 19...
... Harley emphasized that public communication and engagement are complex: Building an infrastructure based on the early sharing of ideas and results could be a waste of time if it ignores the culture of a given field or the needs of young scholars. DIFFERING PRIORITIES IN THE ACADEMIC, INDUSTRY, AND NONPROFIT SECTORS Phillip Needleman of Washington University recounted some of his early experiences in academia, when communication occurred only in the form of publications, abstracts, meeting presentations, and grant applications.
From page 20...
... "Tell stories so that they can visualize the data." Rewards for engaging with the public are frequently inadequate, he said, and prevailing attitudes discourage public communication. In the pharmaceutical industry, secrecy -- driven by competition and patent positioning -- is sometimes an obstacle to communication, he added.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.