This is a 30 minute talk from 2022 for participants in a post bachelors degree fellows program provided the NIH Office of AIDS Research and the Sexual Gender and Minority Research Office. The talk includes some new slides, thinking on strategic science communication

1. Strategic Science
Communication:
A Social Scientific
Approach to Effective
Public Engagement
John C. Besley
Ellis N. Brandt Professor
Communication Arts and Sciences
Michigan State University
[w/Anthony Dudo, The University of Texas, Austin]
This material is based upon
work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grant
AISL 1421214-1421723. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF.

2. What do we mean by
strategic and effective?
Behavioral
Goals
Communication
Objectives
Tactics

3. What do we mean by behavioral goals?
What do you hope will happen from the time,
money, and energy you put into communicating?
Behavioral Trust/
Legitimacy/Acceptance
Specific Behavior
Target: “Audiences” Target: Scientists
Making oneself vulnerable (Not
protesting; Putting attention
elsewhere; Continuing to interact)
[Consider information in the
context of …] Donating; Voting;
Buying; Career choosing, etc.
Willingness to work with specific
audiences; Continuing to interact
Choosing different research
questions; Choosing different
research approaches/methods

4. A frequent science communication conversation
JCB: What’s your goal?
Communicator: “We want to decrease misunderstandings about ______?”
Coming soon
Why do you want
to decrease
misunderstandings?
What do you think will
happen if you succeed?
Coming soon
(The goal questions) (The objectives questions)

5. Goal specificity …
I generally want people in this
country to trust scientists
I want this specific group of
people to trust this specific
groups of scientists
I generally want people in
this country to consider
environmental risks
when making decisions
I want this specific group of
people to include these specific
environmental considerations into
that specific decision
I generally want to ensure my
research meets community needs
I want to ensure this specific
project meets the needs of a
specific group
The Marmot, Pasta in Butter and Brent Rostad, Scallop, both via Flickr Creative Commons

6. Other behaviors by specific groups
that might make funding more likely?
U.S. Congress allocates robust
funding for science
Voters support strong
science funding from
political candidates
Business voices ask for strong
science funding from elected
officials
Constituents ask for strong
science funding from political
elected officials
Business voices support
strong science funding from
political candidates
Political Parties include
support for science funding
in party platforms
Goal stacking …
(i.e., integrated campaigns)
Etc.
People with science
background seek political
office

7. What do we mean by tactics?
Who says or does what to/with
who in what way and through
what channel?
De-Jargonizer
How accessible is
your work, paste your
article … to analyze
the amount of jargon
in your writing.
Most training …
Emphasis on
‘translation,’
storytelling,
new social channels,
and fostering
dialogue (+ more)

8. What about communication objectives?

9. Fast vs. Slow communication: Fast Communication
Key words:
• Priming
• Heuristics and biases
• Availability
• Representativeness
• WYSIATI
• Cognitive shortcuts
• Nudges
• Choice architecture
• Cognitive misers
• Etc.

10. How do we think slow (systematic) communication works?
Over time, efforts to
foster deeper cognitive
engagement on science
topics should result in
long-term, cumulative
changes to all communication
participants’ (including
scientists) evaluative beliefs
Attitudes are the (weighted?) sum of available/salient
beliefs (b) and the evaluation (e) of those beliefs
Paul Sableman, Dripping via Flickr Creative Commons

11. “Available research does
not support the claim that
increasing science literacy will
lead to appreciably greater
support for science ...”
The fundamental challenge
of science communication
[So what can we do?]

12. Communication objectives as core of effectiveness

13. Audience Specific
Behavioral Goals = Dish
• Outcome of many factors
(cannot be achieved directly)
• Chosen based on priorities
Communication
Objectives = Ingredients
• Beliefs, feelings, frames (+salience)
• Direct effect of communication
• Chosen based on goals/context

14. Knowing how to use more
ingredients (objectives) in
more interesting ways
(tactics) means being a more
sophisticated communicator

15. Four Areas of Theory and Research That all
Public Health Communicators Should Know (?)
Paul Sableman, Dripping via Flickr Creative Commons
1. Trust and Trustworthiness:
Integrative Model of Organizational Trust
2. Behavior Change:
Theory of Planned Behavior/Integrated Behavioral Model
3. Emotions: Theories of Discrete Emotions
4. Framing: Sociological vs. psychological framing

16. Communication objectives as core of effectiveness
Meyer, Davis, & Schoorman’s
Integrative Model of Organizational Trust (+
Research on Procedural Fairness)
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335

17. The great thing about a focus
on ‘communication objectives
Vague Option 1: How can we foster trust
Concrete Option 2: How can we foster perceptions
(i.e., pre-beliefs) of benevolence (i.e., caring), etc.

18. Communication objectives as core of effectiveness
Fishbein’s “Integrated Behavioral Model”
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 (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

19. Communication objectives as core of effectiveness
Theories of discrete emotions

20. Communication objectives as core of effectiveness
Nisbet and
Scheufele’s
Frame
Typology
(based on research
by Gamson and
Modigliani)
Nisbet, M. & Scheufele, D.
A. (2007) Framing science:
How should research talk
about science. The Scientist,
21(10), 39-33/
Gamson, W. A., &
Modigliani, A. (1989, Jul).
Media discourse and public
opinion on nuclear power:
A constructionist approach.
American Journal of Sociology,
95(1), 1-37.

21. A frequent science communication conversation
JCB: What’s your goal?
Communicator: “We want to decrease misunderstandings about ______?”
What types of
misunderstandings?
Cause/effect? Risks/
benefits? Norms? Efficacy?
Something about the
people involved?
Why do you want
to decrease
misunderstandings?
What do you think will
happen if you succeed?
Why frame in terms of
misunderstandings? What
might you want people to
believe and feel about the
issues and people involved?
How do you want to frame?
(The goal questions) (The objectives questions)

22. Communication objectives as core of effectiveness