What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.

By Matthew C. Nisbet, Dietram A. Scheufele. American-Eurasian journal of botany, 2009

953 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/52fa6fa878043c69fa6ed9c358ee41a93dcfb64a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change (2014, background): “Critics of the deficit model argue that the relation between knowledge and scientific literacy is quite complex (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009) and that “feeding” the public with more knowledge does not necessarily increase their scientific literacy (Allum, Sturgis, Tabourazi, & BruntonSmith, 2008).”
The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? (2016, background): “Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests (e.g. Brossard et al., 2009; Davies, 2008; Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009; Sturgis and Allum, 2004; Yeo et al., 2015).”
Preaching to different choirs: How to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change? (2016, background): “Consequently, the in ﬂ uence of a message frame is largely determined by its relevance to the audience (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).”
Public Perceptions of the Ethics of In-vitro Meat: Determining an Appropriate Course of Action (2015, background): “Indeed, given the disparity in awareness of IVM that likely exists between individuals who follow science news and those who primarily obtain news from local news networks, it may be unethical to fail to engage in communication efforts aimed at connecting with ‘‘hard-to-reach audiences’’ (Nisbet and”
Scientific Outreach: Toward Effective Public Engagement with Biological Science (2014, background): “…numerous calls for increased dialogue between scientists and the public have come from professional societies (Royal Society 2006, Agre and Leshner 2010), funding agencies (e.g., the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion), and fellow scientists (e.g., Nisbet and Scheufele 2009).”
Motivated Processing (2015, background): “…research Once they have completed their formal education, members of the public primarily learn about scientific research through media coverage (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009), and most health news published in the popular press derives 1National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan Corresponding…”
Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity (2016, background): “Science communication is now conducted not only by professional communicators but also by scientists, interest groups, professional organisations and passionate amateurs across numerous Web 2.0 platforms (Claussen et al., 2013; Lo et al., 2010; Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009).”
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection (2013, background): “…that cause such meanings to take hold, and on framing and other strategies for cleaning up that environment once it has been contaminated with polarizing meanings (Kahan, 2012b), is already well underway (Corner, Whitmarsh & Xenias, 2012; Druckman & Bolsen, 2012, 2011, Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).”
Public understanding of climate change in the United States. (2011, neutral): “This view has sometimes been characterized as a " Pandora's box " frame (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).”
Qualitative Interviews With Science Communication Trainers About Communication Objectives and Goals (2016, background): ““Public engagement” training would be considered communication training in the current context given that much of current science communication scholarship emphasizes the value of creating opportunities for dialogue between scientists and their broader communities (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009).”
Science Literacy or Value Predisposition? A Meta-Analysis of Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits, Risks, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy (2019, background): “Numerous scholars have advocated the strategic use of media framing to convey messages about controversial science and emerging technologies (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2007, 2009).”
Media Literacy as a Key Strategy Toward Improving Public Acceptance of Climate Change Science (2011, background): “…science centers often fail to describe emergent social and ethical issues associated with science issues such as climate change and genetically modified foods (Bradburne 1998), and neglecting to do so may be counter to their structure, mission, and approach to science education (Ogawa et al. 2009).”
The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science (2014, background): “This deficit view was criticized (Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009) and has been largely discredited by data that show only small relationships between the amount of knowledge about science and attitudes about science (Allum, Sturgis, Tabourazi, & Brunton Smith, 2008).”
Motivations to seek science videos on YouTube: free-choice learning in a connected society (2018, background): “Recent scholarship on science in public emphasizes participation in science-related discourse (Feinstein, 2011; Leshner, 2003; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Stilgoe, Lock, & Wilsdon, 2014).”
Putting Environmental Infographics Center Stage (2015, background): “…in information technology and a media landscape of ever-increasing channels and choices, rates of scientific literacy and environmental knowledge are low and have remained so for decades (Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Treise, WalshChilders, Weigold, & Friedman, 2003).”
Boomerang Effects in Science Communication (2012, background): “Audience segmentation analysis (Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2008) and ongoing framing research on science and technology issues (Nisbet, 2009b; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009) may provide useful tools for targeting messages to different population segments.”