Literature DB >> 25218326

An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators.

Anthony Dudo1, LeeAnn Kahlor1, Niveen AbiGhannam1, Allison Lazard1, Ming-Ching Liang1.   

Abstract

The American public remains unfamiliar with nanotechnology despite more than a decade of investment and development. Nanoscientists have an opportunity to contribute to public conversations about their work, and its potential implications, through their engagement with lay audiences and media professionals. Indeed, the leaderships of many professional scientific organizations have placed a renewed focus on the public communication of science, particularly in the light of drastic changes in the information landscape and the increasing politicization of many technological and scientific issues. However, we have a limited understanding of nanoscientists' perceptions and behaviours regarding their participation in public communication. Here, we report survey results that provide an examination of the public communication behaviours of nanoscientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), an integrated partnership of US research institutions designed to facilitate nanoscale research and development. Our results suggest that nanoscientists are relatively frequent public communicators who commonly associate their communication efforts with positive impacts on their professional success. We also identify a handful of characteristics that drive nanoscientists' intentions to communicate with the public about nanotechnology.

Year:  2014        PMID: 25218326     DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2014.194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol        ISSN: 1748-3387            Impact factor:   39.213


  11 in total

1.  Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  C J Armitage; M Conner
Journal:  Br J Soc Psychol       Date:  2001-12

2.  Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions.

Authors:  Michael Siegrist; Carmen Keller
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  Outreach training needed.

Authors:  Alan I Leshner
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Science communication. Interactions with the mass media.

Authors:  Hans Peter Peters; Dominique Brossard; Suzanne de Cheveigné; Sharon Dunwoody; Monika Kallfass; Steve Miller; Shoji Tsuchida
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-07-11       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Scientists worry about some risks more than the public.

Authors:  Dietram A Scheufele; Elizabeth A Corley; Sharon Dunwoody; Tsung-Jen Shih; Elliott Hillback; David H Guston
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2007-11-25       Impact factor: 39.213

6.  Predicting scientists' participation in public life.

Authors:  John C Besley; Sang Hwa Oh; Matthew Nisbet
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2012-10-17

7.  How scientists view the public, the media and the political process.

Authors:  John C Besley; Matthew Nisbet
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2011-08-30

8.  Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators.

Authors:  Hans Peter Peters
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Corley; Dietram A Scheufele; Qian Hu
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 2.253

10.  Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom.

Authors:  Nick Pidgeon; Barbara Herr Harthorn; Karl Bryant; Tee Rogers-Hayden
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2008-12-07       Impact factor: 39.213

View more
  6 in total

1.  Public engagement: the benefits of communicating.

Authors:  Michael A Cacciatore
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Authors:  Anthony Dudo; John C Besley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Public engagement by researchers of different disciplines in Singapore: A qualitative comparison of macro- and meso-level concerns.

Authors:  Shirley S Ho; Jiemin Looi; Yan Wah Leung; Tong Jee Goh
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2019-11-28

4.  Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement.

Authors:  Emily L Howell; Julia Nepper; Dominique Brossard; Michael A Xenos; Dietram A Scheufele
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Perceived behavioral control as a moderator: Scientists' attitude, norms, and willingness to engage the public.

Authors:  Shirley S Ho; Tong Jee Goh; Agnes S F Chuah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Microbiologists' Public Engagement Views and Behaviors.

Authors:  Anthony Dudo; John Besley; Lee Ann Kahlor; Hyeseung Koh; Jacob Copple; Shupei Yuan
Journal:  J Microbiol Biol Educ       Date:  2018-03-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.